ObamaJobs: The Speech

[scott]

Democrats, check in here on how awesome he did.

Republicans, check in on how he is destroying America.

Hard to judge his proposals without actually seeing them, but they seem pretty rockin' and rollin' - of course the issue will be the suggested tax increases on the top tier.

Curious that one of the last things he said: "The next election is 14 months away - [Americans] can't wait 14 months" got the standing O from both parties considering its all the wackjobs in that room that are preventing progress by putting their re-electability first.

On the political front, Obama laid the groundwork for what I believe will be the Democrats message in the 2012 elections: "Those are the guys who prevented us from doing anything in the name of politics." Bold move.

Lastly, Obama is a damn good speaker regardless of what you feel of his politics. His level of public speaking ability should be an absolutely minimum requirement for the office of President (just as it would for a Fortune 500 CEO).

[2Blonde]

I taped it to watch w/my husband when he gets home. The only part I saw so far was him stopping to greet damned near everyone in the auditorium I noticed he looked very relaxed & at ease. Not a hint of tension.
I'll come back after I watch the speech.

[Drachen]

I would like to see the proposal.... After all that (wednesday, no thursday....) I hope that there is a bill forthcoming. There isn't anything that he said that I could honestly say "NO - END OF DISCUSSION" to. Everything seems pretty reasonable. Dems have to give up medicare reform, Reps have to give up super rich tax increases. It seems balanced to me. I am sure that I will be proven wrong in the next couple of posts.

[4>0rings]

Nothing pissed me off more than the look of disgust from Boehner every second of the speech, just cause Obama was a D and not a R. For fucks sake Boehner, not everything was total shit that Obama was talking about.

[ducks]

so to create jobs you have to spend 450 billion
basically another stimulas that failed
and then raise taxes
can a democrat every do anything without saying we can do this if we increase taxes

[Nbadan]

I favor another stimulus bill.... especially if it can be paid for without raising taxes on those making less than $200K, cuts in defense spending and closing corporate loopholes...I just hope that Obama sticks to his guns on this bill and it doesn't let it be turned into a corporate compromised bill with no meat....

[Drachen]

so to create jobs you have to spend 450 billion
basically another stimulas that failed
and then raise taxes
can a democrat every do anything without saying we can do this if we increase taxes

Ah, bold choice, ignoring the part about spending cuts. We shall see how that ignorance pans out for you.

[Spurminator]

You didn't know ducks is a top GOP strategist?

[Nbadan]

The problems with unemployment are much deeper than just a tax cut on small businesses

it simply is not profitable for companies to do business in the U.S.,even when they are making profits hand over fists...

nhG3Cba8QdU

[Drachen]

You didn't know ducks is a top GOP strategist?

and B_D is a Democratic Strategist! LOL


Bizarroworld is fun!

[ducks]

Ah, bold choice, ignoring the part about spending cuts. We shall see how that ignorance pans out for you.

spending cuts just like a lower deficit he promised after he become president. THAT MY FRIEND IS a FORKED TONGUE
spending cut my ass

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[Drachen]

spending cuts just like a lower deficit he promised after he become president. THAT MY FRIEND IS a FORKED TONGUE
spending cut my ass

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Like I said, I would like to see a bill, I also said that everything that he proposed seems balanced (spending cuts through medi-reform and tax increases for the wealthy so each party is sacrificing a sacred cow, etc). Do you disagree?

[ducks]

The problems with unemployment are much deeper than just a tax cut on small businesses

it simply is not profitable for companies to do business in the U.S.,even when they are making profits hand over fists...

nhG3Cba8QdU


I favor another stimulus bill.... especially if it can be paid for without raising taxes on those making less than $200K, cuts in defense spending and closing corporate loopholes...I just hope that Obama sticks to his guns on this bill and it doesn't let it be turned into a corporate compromised bill with no meat....

then why spend money to help them if it goes deeper then that
fix the deeper issues then give them a stimulas

[mouse]

I taped it .


People still use VHS? :lmao


Same here I TVo'd it to watch when the ball in chain gets home we will drink and smoke and listen to more lies that will motivate us not to off ourselves for another year.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/02/05/obama-supporter-cp-4298581.jpg

[ducks]

I am for closing tax loopholes
but 42% of people do not pay taxes
make those people pay taxes and put it right to the debt. DO NOT LET THOSE POLICATIONS TOUCH THAT MONEY

[Nbadan]

...the real problems are structural in globalization, not easily fixable...especially since the U.S, thinks of itself as the globalization capital of the world...It could take decades to fix those issues...people who are unemployed don't have decades to wait...either we pay for a stimulus now or slowly bleed to death in social benefits...

[Wild Cobra]

I guess I'm left out of this since I'm neither democrat or republican.

[Nbadan]

I am for closing tax loopholes
but 42% of people do not pay taxes
make those people pay taxes and put it right to the debt. DO NOT LET THOSE POLICATIONS TOUCH THAT MONEY

:rolleyes same old mem

Everyone pays taxes, except corporations evidently...

[Capt Bringdown]

Pretty clear now that Obama wants to make entitlement reform the hallmark of his presidency.

[ElNono]

Just caught bits and pieces. The parts I heard did sound great (like the close the loopholes part). The thing is, I can see nothing getting done. And I can also see Barry being at fault for that (the final form of the 'American Jobs' bill being 'compromised' into an ugly monster nobody wants, like Obamacare).

So, wait and see.

[ElNono]

I can also see the tax cuts going through, but not the tax increases, which would make then even more historically low, and put the country into a bigger hole.

[SnakeBoy]

I thought it was a pretty weak plan. Honestly I wish the GOP would just pass the plan. That way when things don't turn around they could say they gave Obama everything he wanted to fix the economy.

[coyotes_geek]

Looks to me like the plan is little more than taking a bunch of things that we've already tried that didn't work and packaging them together.

[SA210]

Speeches :lol

[DMX7]

I guess I'm left out of this since I'm neither democrat or republican.

lol

[scott]

I guess I'm left out of this since I'm neither democrat or republican.

Is that all we have to do to get you to not post? SWEET.

[scott]

I thought it was a pretty weak plan. Honestly I wish the GOP would just pass the plan. That way when things don't turn around they could say they gave Obama everything he wanted to fix the economy.

Specifics on what is weak? What would you do different/better?

[DMX7]

He's a teabagger. Much better.

[Capt Bringdown]

Using a jobs bill to cut Medicare - that's Obama for ya.

[mouse]

I just realized this may be the first time in history so many white people are looking to a black man for a job.

[ElNono]

Looks to me like the plan is little more than taking a bunch of things that we've already tried that didn't work and packaging them together.

Closing loopholes wasn't tried, but I doubt we'll ever see it.

[Wild Cobra]

Pretty clear now that Obama wants to make entitlement reform the hallmark of his presidency.
That's why we conservative hope he fails. To embrace this entitlement mentality would be the destruction of America. We are already running out of tax payers.

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. -M.T.-

We have already run out of other people's money!

[baseline bum]

I guess I'm left out of this since I'm neither democrat or republican.

:rollin

[SnakeBoy]

Specifics on what is weak?

Well I don't see where ~$300 billion in temporary tax cuts is going to have much more of an effect on job creation than Bush's stimulus plan did (remember the refund checks). Add ~$50 billion in unemployment extensions, ~$100 billion in school renovations and bridge repairs, and a "I'll get back to ya" on how to pay for it and you have a weak plan.


What would you do different/better?

I don't know how to turn this economy around, neither does Obama...or you.

Edit - Let's just call it like it is. This "plan" is designed specifically to box house republicans in as obstructionists so Obama can pretend he's Truman and run against the "do nothing" congress. The GOP should fuck him over and just pass his plan "as is"...but they're not smart enough to do that unfortunately.

[MannyIsGod]

Speeches :lol

Fucking word. I'm so TIRED of Obama and his speeches. Fucking deliver or GTFO.

[MannyIsGod]

I think Scott might know a thing or two about job creation. Just sayin.

[SnakeBoy]

I think Scott might know a thing or two about job creation. Just sayin.

He may be a smart guy but if he has all the answers to fix our healthcare system, financial system, entitlement programs, debt problems, and whatever other major issues that are a drag on our economy then he's underemployed.

[baseline bum]

He may be a smart guy but if he has all the answers to fix our healthcare system, financial system, entitlement programs, debt problems, and whatever other major issues that are a drag on our economy then he's underemployed.

I don't know; I think scott's gotta be having a lot more fun making beer than he would arguing with congress.

[SnakeBoy]

As far as the speech itself...even weaker than the plan. Remember back when Obama had his mojo and could deliver applause lines and stand there with his chin in the air while everyone adored him. Tonight every other line was "Pass this plan please" like a kid begging his parents for something.

[boutons_deux]

Bitch McConnell said he'd listen politely, then block it.

[Capt Bringdown]

That's why we conservative hope he fails.

Why would a conservative hope Obama fails? Under Obama, conservatives have never had it so good. Expanded wars, privatization of public education, rolling back of EPA regulations, further erosion of civil liberties, tax cuts upon tax cuts, wall street cock-suckery, industry bailouts and on and on. Obama is Bush's third term. Plus you've got the deeply dishonest and ruthless pleasure of trying to frame America's first black Republican President as a dangerous socialist. Genius!

Consider that you've got a so-called Democratic president cynically using a jobs speech to push for cuts to Medicare.

Also the "we've got to slash Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid in order to save it" is the IDENTICAL position staked out by Romney in the previous night's debate.

If Obama wins you get conservative policy, if Obama loses at the very least you get Romney.

Claims that Conservatives want Obama to fail are about as convincing as claims that Obama is a socialist.

http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/imagecache/feature400/black_jobless02.jpg

[George Gervin's Afro]

I am a very simple person. I know that a president can't 'create' jobs and many of those who are critcizing him know that. What does that make them?

[Capt Bringdown]

I am a very simple person. I know that a president can't 'create' jobs and many of those who are critcizing him know that. What does that make them?

Speaking for myself, I never criticized the President for not creating jobs, but for cynically using a jobs bill to insist on Medicare cuts.

I don't think the "powerless president" myth makes much sense in reference to Obama:


Obama is not a flaccid Jimmy Carter, as some of his critics insist. He is instead a Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- but a bizarro FDR. He has mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor -- but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of "organized money" that FDR once challenged.

On healthcare, for instance, Obama passed a Heritage Foundation-inspired bailout of the private health insurance industry, all while undermining other more-progressive proposals. On foreign policy, he escalated old wars and initiated new ones. On civil liberties, he not only continued the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects but also claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without charge.

On financial issues, he fought off every serious proposal to reregulate banks following the economic meltdown; he preserved ongoing bank bailouts; and he resisted pressure to prosecute Wall Street thieves. On fiscal matters, after extending the Bush tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, he has used the debt ceiling negotiations to set the stage for potentially massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare -- cuts that would be far bigger than any of his proposed revenue increases.

Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a liberal) (http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/05/obama_fdr_debt_ceiling)

- more - (http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/08/05/obama_fdr_debt_ceiling)

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Tonight every other line was "Pass this plan please" like a kid begging his parents for something.:lol please? I don't think there was a "please" in his tone. All he did, like someone else said, is packaged everything that didn't work before and said "pass it" knowing damn well nothing is gonna happen. Oh, and with a louder voice. Yeah, it's nice saying "jobs" and all that but that doesn't mean it'll make things better when he says it. Just more of the same game of chicken they're all playing. Oh and it was nice of him to have Jeffery Immelt and Richard Trumka as his guests. That should say something.

[boutons_deux]

"nothing is gonna happen"

because the Repugs will block anything, while maximizing the greatest pain for the greatest number going into Nov 2012.

[JoeChalupa]

I thought he did well and we all know the medicare issue does need to be addressed. No plan will be perfect and even if it was the GOP would still not like it because anything that will be a success for Obama they are against. I was glad to hear Boehner and some other republicans though say they are ready to work and get things done.

[scott]

Well I don't see where ~$300 billion in temporary tax cuts is going to have much more of an effect on job creation than Bush's stimulus plan did (remember the refund checks). Add ~$50 billion in unemployment extensions, ~$100 billion in school renovations and bridge repairs, and a "I'll get back to ya" on how to pay for it and you have a weak plan.



I don't know how to turn this economy around, neither does Obama...or you.

Edit - Let's just call it like it is. This "plan" is designed specifically to box house republicans in as obstructionists so Obama can pretend he's Truman and run against the "do nothing" congress. The GOP should fuck him over and just pass his plan "as is"...but they're not smart enough to do that unfortunately.

I agree this was at least part of the point of the speech, Labor Day has passed at this definitely was the kickoff of the Democrats 2012 campaign.

I think the best parts (assuming they are what they are claimed to be when the details are released) of this plan are the ones that are likely to be the most contentious: SS/Medicaid/Medicare reform, closing of tax loopholes, Corporate Tax reform, etc. and will have long lasting effects if implemented properly.

I agree the temporary tax cuts is more of the same. In theory they should provide a temporary boost to the economy, especially if that money makes its way through the economy at the same multiplier as other money does: but as we've seen with past temporary tax cuts, Americans aren't spending it: they are using it to pay down their debt (novel idea) or to save. I'm not terribly optimistic about this idea.

The payroll tax holiday could have a huge impact in terms of leading to job creation and/or capital investment for small business but at the end of the day, small businesses are just like big businesses - and the owners are under no obligation to return these benefits to workers or physical capital. They have the right to simply pocket it if they choose. The thought it that big corporations aren't impacted by these types of stimuli because they already have access to capital for their projects and a little extra moola like this doesn't make a different in the decision-making processes because it hardly makes a dent in their weighted average cost of capital (if you believe that is the decision-making metric). On the other hand, a small business doesn't have access to that kind of capital, so a payroll tax holiday provides a windfall they have no other way of accessing, and thus we count on the entrepreneurial spirit of the owner to use that windfall to fund the project he/she otherwise couldn't. Unfortunately, not even the brightest of economists have crystal balls and there is no way to tell what will actually happen.

The infrastructure spending is needed, and will provide some jobs, but $100b seems like a drop in the bucket. I like the idea of providing a superfund for private industry to borrow from better - of course then we get nutjobs like Terri Hall starting campaigns about how a private company is building a road so they can profit (well, no shit... what do you think that company is in business for?).

[DarrinS]

961 days in, Obama becomes sick and tired of someone dawdling about jobs


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-congress-bad-news-polls-.html





Speaking on behalf of millions of Americans who've grown angry and frustrated over the president's 32-month ineffective inactivity on the job creation front, President Obama on Thursday told members of Congress they really have to do something about the crummy employment situation -- and do it quickly.

Citing the plight of millions of struggling Americans whose wishes for jobs Obama ignored for most of the 961 days he's been in office while chasing shinier healthcare and financial reforms, Obama said it was time that Congress stop blaming others. He said it was time members take responsibility for their inaction and halt their phony partisan games and political circus acts that pervade Washington culture.

Because the Americans Obama hasn't been listening to are really hurting now. And -- who's....

....counting? -- but it's only 424 days until Nov. 6, 2012. No plan yet to pay for Obama's ideas. But he wants immediate passage of his American Jobs Act anyway.

Obama, whose Democratic spending priorities have pushed the national debt beyond $14,000,000,000,000, said it was important to curb spending and keep to the deficit reduction plan agreed to earlier this summer while also investing in, you know, many important things.

He then provided a joint session of Congress with a broadly ambitious list of goals that sounded to many people very much like a lot more spending, like, say, the $787 billion economic stimulus bill of 2009 that didn't stimulate much of anything except that national debt.

With the national debt already increasing $3 million every minute of every day, Obama wants to repair and modernize 35,000 schools. Obama wants $35 billion to go toward salaries for teachers, firefighters and police.

Obama wants $140 billion largely to update roads and bridges. Obama wants another $245 billion in business and individual tax relief. Obama also wants to extend unemployment benefits.

And Obama wants it all right now. Seriously. Now that his Martha's Vineyard vacation is over, this situation is urgent.

Obama didn't have room in his 4,021 word speech to mention how he intended to pay for all this new sounds-an-awful-like-increased-new-stimulus-spending-but-we're-not-using-that-word-anymore.

Aides said Americans should trust the president and sometime soon he would be outlining the finances that would not increase the national debt by one dime, honest.

Today in Virginia and next week in Ohio, Obama begins an aggressive autumn of travels selling his sounds-like-new-spending plans by day and fundraising by evening, bashing guess who for not solving the job crisis long ago.

Because like pretty much every sentient American, he knows full well there isn't one chance in Haiti of the divided Congress approving this package.

In fact, Obama's counting on that because grandiose program-proposing like this costs nothing-zero-nada, except the limo gas to the Capitol. Yet it gives perpetual candidate Obama tons of swell-sounding details to talk about during the 2011-12 reelection campaign.

Because he can't blame his mother-in-law for the nation's economic mess. When's the last time you heard a Harvard grad say, "Boy, did I blow that!" So, the only culprits left are in Congress, especially those Repugnicans.

But here's the catch that Obama and his Windy City wizards missed: Most Americans are not politically obedient machine Chicagoans. Like a linebacker reading the quarterback's eyes, they've already figured out this South Sider's game.

This week's ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that, based on their 961 days' experience with the current White House crowd, 47% say Obama's new economic program will have zero effect on the economy.

Worse politically, twice as many -- 34% vs 17% -- say Obama's plan will actually make matters worse, instead of better.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll the other day found 73% of Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. That's 23 points more than felt that way at the beginning of summer.

Funny coincidence. The last time the revealing wrong track number was this high (78%) was in the autumn of 2008, just two weeks before Americans bought Obama's "Change to Believe In" line.

And they have the pink slips to prove it.

[scott]

That's why we conservative hope he fails. To embrace this entitlement mentality would be the destruction of America. We are already running out of tax payers.

The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. -M.T.-

We have already run out of other people's money!

Not surprising WC would come on strong with this non-sense. For conservatives... uh, I mean... libertarians?... like Wild Cobra, they don't want to see Obama reform Medicare, or accomplish anything - because it undermines their number one: defeat Obama in 2012, no matter the cost.

Their goal isn't to do what's best for America, it's to defeat Obama. So if Obama were to accomplish something the majority of Americans support, even real conservatives, then it would make achieving his goal harder.

Only in Wild Cobra's barely functioning brain would "reforming a system so that it costs less to maintain and reduces benefits going forward" be construed as a socialist plot to take more of the non-existant riches he makes as a parts-changer.

[Spurminator]

I have little faith that "temporary" tax cuts are ever temporary anymore. As soon as the "temporary" period is up, the renewal of those cuts becomes a political topic framed as "raising taxes."

[DarrinS]

Not surprising WC would come on strong with this non-sense. For conservatives... uh, I mean... libertarians?... like Wild Cobra, they don't want to see Obama reform Medicare, or accomplish anything - because it undermines their number one: defeat Obama in 2012, no matter the cost.

Their goal isn't to do what's best for America, it's to defeat Obama. So if Obama were to accomplish something the majority of Americans support, even real conservatives, then it would make achieving his goal harder.

Only in Wild Cobra's barely functioning brain would "reforming a system so that it costs less to maintain and reduces benefits going forward" be construed as a socialist plot to take more of the non-existant riches he makes as a parts-changer.


Obama got his stimulus and Obamacare passed (just no one wanted those things). I guess after 961 days in office, now is a good time to focus on jobs.

[JoeChalupa]

Get it done!! Yes we can!!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Obama got his stimulus and Obamacare passed (just no one wanted those things). I guess after 961 days in office, now is a good time to focus on jobs.

do you realize the president can't 'create' jobs, right?

serious question

[Capt Bringdown]

I have little faith that "temporary" tax cuts are ever temporary anymore. As soon as the "temporary" period is up, the renewal of those cuts becomes a political topic framed as "raising taxes."

Indeed. Not that hard to see where this all will end up:


Extending this 2% cut would gut Social Security's finances forever. But whatever happens, look at what Social Security's enemies will have accomplished:
The "lockbox" principle between Social Security and the overall budget will have been erased forever. A relatively small infusion of cash into the trust fund will be the poison pill that erases the "trust fund" principle. Once the program has contributed to the deficit, it's no longer separately funded.
The enemies of Social Security will have painted a bull's eye on its only source of funding. People will see it as a "new tax" -- in a year when the economy's not expected to have fully recovered.
They'll be in a position to argue, once again, that "America can't afford" to provide financial security for middle-class seniors.

Obama's "Tax Holiday": A Poison Pill for Social Security >> (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/obamas-tax-holiday-a-pois_b_793526.html)

[boutons_deux]

rural red-state bubbas should know who butters their bread, and it ain't the Repugs.

Government Actions Raised Rural Communities from Depth of Recession

Policies Saved or Created 300,000 Jobs

Some of the money was invested in local businesses in order to provide the necessary capital for continued growth and employment:

The Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program received $1.6 billion of the funds. The program guarantees loans made by local lenders to private businesses in rural areas. These funds saved or created more than 33,000 jobs by enabling financing for more than 500 rural projects.
The Rural Business Cooperative Service received $19.5 million of the funds. The program helps finance the expansion and development of small businesses in rural areas. This resulted in the creation or saving of 13,000 rural jobs.

The USDA directed additional funds at infrastructure and homes, which improved rural quality of life while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The $3.5 billion of funds for the Broadband Initiatives Loan and Grant Program brought high-speed Internet connection to more than 7 million people and created or saved 25,800 jobs.
The $1.4 billion allocated to the Community Facilities Loan and Grant Program paid for the construction or restoration of schools, health care facilities, libraries, and public safety facilities such as police and fire stations, while creating or saving 32,500 jobs.
A total of $3.3 billion went toward the Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program, which funded 854 projects and improved access to clean drinking water and safe waste disposal for more than 1.7 million people, and simultaneously created or saved 66,000 jobs.
Finally, $11.4 billion went to fund two projects: the Single Family Housing Direct Loan Program and the Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program. Together, they helped 93,000 rural families purchase homes and saved or created 125,000 jobs.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/rural_employment.html

[MannyIsGod]

I agree this was at least part of the point of the speech, Labor Day has passed at this definitely was the kickoff of the Democrats 2012 campaign.

I think the best parts (assuming they are what they are claimed to be when the details are released) of this plan are the ones that are likely to be the most contentious: SS/Medicaid/Medicare reform, closing of tax loopholes, Corporate Tax reform, etc. and will have long lasting effects if implemented properly.

I agree the temporary tax cuts is more of the same. In theory they should provide a temporary boost to the economy, especially if that money makes its way through the economy at the same multiplier as other money does: but as we've seen with past temporary tax cuts, Americans aren't spending it: they are using it to pay down their debt (novel idea) or to save. I'm not terribly optimistic about this idea.

The payroll tax holiday could have a huge impact in terms of leading to job creation and/or capital investment for small business but at the end of the day, small businesses are just like big businesses - and the owners are under no obligation to return these benefits to workers or physical capital. They have the right to simply pocket it if they choose. The thought it that big corporations aren't impacted by these types of stimuli because they already have access to capital for their projects and a little extra moola like this doesn't make a different in the decision-making processes because it hardly makes a dent in their weighted average cost of capital (if you believe that is the decision-making metric). On the other hand, a small business doesn't have access to that kind of capital, so a payroll tax holiday provides a windfall they have no other way of accessing, and thus we count on the entrepreneurial spirit of the owner to use that windfall to fund the project he/she otherwise couldn't. Unfortunately, not even the brightest of economists have crystal balls and there is no way to tell what will actually happen.

The infrastructure spending is needed, and will provide some jobs, but $100b seems like a drop in the bucket. I like the idea of providing a superfund for private industry to borrow from better - of course then we get nutjobs like Terri Hall starting campaigns about how a private company is building a road so they can profit (well, no shit... what do you think that company is in business for?).

For some reason I thought when I started reading this that Darrin had made this post. Halfway through I was like wtf this is the most well reasoned post I've seen Darrin make ever. Then I looked at the name. Oops.

I agree completely with you on the final (on all points really but the final one especially) point. The sad state of our infrastructure shoudl have made it the prime target from the get go and they still don't get the message.

[MannyIsGod]

I have little faith that "temporary" tax cuts are ever temporary anymore. As soon as the "temporary" period is up, the renewal of those cuts becomes a political topic framed as "raising taxes."

This is a damn fine point as well.

[boutons_deux]

the Repug Choir of Liars chimes in with their prepared/synchronized bullshit

GOP Derides Obama Jobs Plan As ‘Second Stimulus,’ Ignoring Success Of The First

many Republicans have derided the plan by calling it another stimulus, along the lines of the 2009 Recovery Act:

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): “More stimulus? Do we really need ‘son of stimulus’? We passed a trillion dollars in stimulus. Will billions more do the job? There is nothing new here…I hope Congress doesn’t pass this plan.”

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA): “The failed stimulus and its successor policies have proven that massive government deficit spending is not the solution — it is the problem.” Issa also “poo-pooed the president’s job package, saying it sounds like a ‘second stimulus.’”

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): “Although the plan we heard tonight sounds a lot like a replay of his 2009 stimulus bill, even the President has now come to realize what Americans have known for some time, it simply didn’t work. $800 billion in federal spending got us where we are today.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL): “This seems to be nothing more than a son of stimulus proposal that will generate more political rhetoric than jobs. If that is the case, I will firmly reject it.”

REP. ANDY HARRIS (R-MD): “We didn’t hear a whole lot new. This is basically ‘stimulus two.’”

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): “Two and a half years after the President’s signature jobs bill was signed into law, 1.7 million fewer Americans have jobs. So, I’d say that Americans have 1.7 million reasons to oppose another stimulus.”

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN REINCE PREIBUS: “Despite one failed stimulus, the President wants even more deficit spending.”

Of course, all of this criticism is based on the incorrect assumption that the 2009 Recovery Act didn’t work. But as the Congressional Budget Office has continually found, the Recovery Act created or supported millions of jobs, keeping the unemployment rate up to two points below where it otherwise would have been. At its height in the third quarter of 2010, Recovery Act funds were supporting up to 3.6 million jobs.

In June of this year, Recovery Act funding was still supporting up to 2.9 million jobs. This chart tracks the change in employment that occurred following the passage of the Recovery Act:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/recoveryactjobs0909.png

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/09/315347/gop-second-stimulus/

[DarrinS]

do you realize the president can't 'create' jobs, right?

serious question


Actually, he can create public sector jobs, but that's not the kind we need. He can't directly create private sector jobs, but he can implement policies that don't hinder their creation.

[boutons_deux]

Lending money, say at the same interest rate that Banksters get from the Fed, to states and municipalities for infrastructure creation and maintenance directly creates jobs in the private sector.

water, sewer, electrical grid, roads, bridges, dams, coal-fired generators retirement and/or scrubbers, are all ready for $Bs.

But this discussion is moot, Repugs will block everything that helps Human-Americans.

[ElNono]

Obama got his stimulus and Obamacare passed (just no one wanted those things). I guess after 961 days in office, now is a good time to focus on jobs.

He got the tax cuts extended too, at the request of GOP so they would trickle down to jobs. That didn't quite work, did it?

[Winehole23]

More tax cuts are surely the solution there.

[ElNono]

More tax cuts are surely the solution there.

Exactly

[boutons_deux]

Big Oil Kills Jobs For Profits

The American Petroleum Institute argues that giving oil companies government handouts will create jobs. However, a new report by the House Natural Resources Democratic Staff finds that the major oil companies have actually shed employees while reaping record profits. From 2005 to 2010, Exxon, BP, Chevron, and Shell dumped 11,200 U.S. employees while raking in $546 billion in profits.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/09/09/315625/big-oil-kills-jobs-for-profits/

[boutons_deux]

Recovery Act Jobs Still Critical to Our Economy

Numerous nonpartisan economic and academic studies credit government economic spending between 2009 and 2011 for pulling our economy out of the deep, two-and-a-half-year Great Recession, which ended in June 2009, and the subsequently uneven economic recovery. The principal vehicle for that spending, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was responsible for 2.4 million jobs each quarter from the months after its passage in February 2009 to the present—jobs that would not otherwise have existed. Even though nearly 85 percent of the total Recovery Act funds have now been spent, those dollars are continuing to flow through the economy and mitigate the effects of the continuing drags on economic recovery.

When Congress debated the Recovery Act legislation in the winter of 2008-09, the private sector was shedding a record 700,000 to 800,000 jobs per month. The bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis threw the U.S. economy into a free fall—a collapse that has since partially reversed itself thanks to the effects of the Recovery Act.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/img/recovery_act_jobs1.jpg

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/recovery_act_jobs.html

[jack sommerset]

Barry sucks. He has resorted to spamming.

The White House Press Office sent nearly 50 e-mails to reporters overnight with statements of support from the president's allies, including The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Democratic lawmakers, The Center for American Progress, the mayor of San Francisco and members of Obama's own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-floods-reporters-inboxes-obama-jobs-speech-155956139.html

[Crookshanks]

Just a thought... wouldn't it have been more effective if Obama had waited to give this speech AFTER he presented his bill to Congress? I mean, he kept yelling "Pass this bill now", but there's no bill to pass yet!!!!! Seems like it would've made more sense for him to get his plans written in a bill and present it to Congress - then give his speech.

But this is just more of Obummer's grandstanding. Give a speech listing all of these grandiose plans (albeit with no clear way to pay for them), then blame someone else when they go nowhere. HEY MR. PRESIDENT - IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE ALL THOSE IDEAS WILL WORK - THEN WRITE THE DAMN BILL AND PUT IT OUT THERE FOR CONGRESS TO VOTE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Just a thought... wouldn't it have been more effective if Obama had waited to give this speech AFTER he presented his bill to Congress? I mean, he kept yelling "Pass this bill now", but there's no bill to pass yet!!!!! Seems like it would've made more sense for him to get his plans written in a bill and present it to Congress - then give his speech.

But this is just more of Obummer's grandstanding. Give a speech listing all of these grandiose plans (albeit with no clear way to pay for them), then blame someone else when they go nowhere. HEY MR. PRESIDENT - IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE ALL THOSE IDEAS WILL WORK - THEN WRITE THE DAMN BILL AND PUT IT OUT THERE FOR CONGRESS TO VOTE ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't realize that presidents write bills..

[JoeChalupa]

Get it done damnit!!

[CosmicCowboy]

just a thought... Wouldn't it have been more effective if obama had waited to give this speech after he presented his bill to congress? I mean, he kept yelling "pass this bill now", but there's no bill to pass yet!!!!! Seems like it would've made more sense for him to get his plans written in a bill and present it to congress - then give his speech.

But this is just more of obummer's grandstanding. Give a speech listing all of these grandiose plans (albeit with no clear way to pay for them), then blame someone else when they go nowhere. Hey mr. President - if you really believe all those ideas will work - then write the damn bill and put it out there for congress to vote on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

x2

[CosmicCowboy]

I didn't realize that presidents write bills..

dumbass

Put the proposal in writing, specify exactly what you are asking for, and let the CBO score it.

[CosmicCowboy]

The markets certainly weren't impressed by the Teleprompter in Chief. Dow already down 300+ points.

[Winehole23]

Perhaps the markets are more impressed with the impending implosion of the Eurozone.

[George Gervin's Afro]

dumbass

Put the proposal in writing, specify exactly what you are asking for, and let the CBO score it.

so they don't actually write the bills...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Perhaps the markets are more impressed with the impending implosion of the Eurozone.

wait a minute.. I thought this drop was attributed to Obama's speech... Cosmic Cowboy will be disappointed..

he's not that bright

[hater]

:lol Obama's speech should have save Europe

[scott]

So the loudest complaints we have so far are:

1) He waited 961 days to "care about jobs" and
2) He should have sent the bill to congress before his press conference (which goes against precedent for pretty much any President)

In other words, SnakeBoy is the only poster of decidedly conservative leaning to give the proposal any real thought before criticizing it, while (not surprisingly) we have the Darrins, CosmicCowboys and Chookshanks of the forum playing the Ying to boutons idiotic Yang, spewing out whatever nonsense they can to basically say "my team is always right your team is always wrong nanananananana".

Par for the course.

[Winehole23]

wait a minute.. I thought this drop was attributed to Obama's speech... Inferred it, more like. He's shifty like that.

[scott]

After the speech yesterday, I did flip on FoxNews radio to listen to reaction and these are the main themes I heard:

"He says he wants to end the political circus, but he is the ringleader!"
"If he would just get out of the way of small businesses, we'd be fine!"

Neither of these address the issue at hand, they are more of the same "Obama said it so it must be wrong" mentality. Now, before boutons posts some stupid blog about how this is the Republican mentality, let us remind everyone that this was exactly the thinking of Democrats for eight years under GWB.

Both sides have the blood of politics on their hands. As my college history professor told us years ago: "A politician's job is to win an election. A statesman's job is to serve the constituency that elected him. We don't have enough (or even any) statesmen."

[SnakeBoy]

"He says he wants to end the political circus, but he is the ringleader!"


Obama's first action after presenting his plan is to hop on a plane and deliver a political speech in Eric Cantor's district. I'd say the ringleader comment is pretty accurate.

[boutons_deux]

"thinking of Democrats for eight years under GWB"

I didn't have that impression of the anti-dubyas.

But nobody here can list anything positive that occurred in the Repugs' Reign of Error (at least not enough to begin offset the negatives), so if the anybody thought "it's dubya, so it must be wrong", they would have been right.

[scott]

Obama's first action after presenting his plan is to hop on a plane and deliver a political speech in Eric Cantor's district. I'd say the ringleader comment is pretty accurate.

Whether or not that statement is true, it actually has nothing to do with an analysis of the proposal at hand - and that is my point. It fits in quite perfectly with the thread about the NYT article on Palin: it doesn't matter if his proposal is good, non-sequitous arguments against it are immediately thrown forth because the opposition can't accept the possibility of the other side ever having a good idea.

[scott]

"thinking of Democrats for eight years under GWB"

I didn't have that impression of the anti-dubyas.

But nobody here can list anything positive that occurred in the Repugs' Reign of Error (at least not enough to begin offset the negatives), so if the anybody thought "it's dubya, so it must be wrong", they would have been right.

Point proven. Thanks stupid!

[boutons_deux]

list all the net positives for Human-Americans by dubya's gang, or GFY.

[DarrinS]

Deja vu

syMFyzaBNUo

[CosmicCowboy]

So the loudest complaints we have so far are:

1) He waited 961 days to "care about jobs" and
2) He should have sent the bill to congress before his press conference (which goes against precedent for pretty much any President)

In other words, SnakeBoy is the only poster of decidedly conservative leaning to give the proposal any real thought before criticizing it, while (not surprisingly) we have the Darrins, CosmicCowboys and Chookshanks of the forum playing the Ying to boutons idiotic Yang, spewing out whatever nonsense they can to basically say "my team is always right your team is always wrong nanananananana".

Par for the course.

BTW Scott, I'm fine with extending and increasing the SS witholding tax cuts for another year.

I don't think it will do shit for creating jobs but it's certainly popular.

[vy65]

The markets certainly weren't impressed by the Teleprompter in Chief. Dow already down 300+ points.

You do realize the ECB head stepped down today, right?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44449392/ns/politics-white_house/

Whoops

[CosmicCowboy]

You do realize the ECB head stepped down today, right?

I didn't say it was the teleprompters fault. And yes, I follow world economic events.

[vy65]

Whether or not that statement is true, it actually has nothing to do with an analysis of the proposal at hand - and that is my point. It fits in quite perfectly with the thread about the NYT article on Palin: it doesn't matter if his proposal is good, non-sequitous arguments against it are immediately thrown forth because the opposition can't accept the possibility of the other side ever having a good idea.

Honest question: do you think that part of an "analysis of the proposal at hand" should include the viability of its passage through the congress?

I'm not trying to be cute - I thought the plan sounds pretty good. But given the current political climate, how likely will its passage be?

[vy65]

I didn't say it was the teleprompters fault. And yes, I follow world economic events.


The markets certainly weren't impressed by the Teleprompter in Chief. Dow already down 300+ points.

lol then you're an idiot.

[DarrinS]

What is Congress supposed to pass? They can't pass a speech.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol then you're an idiot.

I said they weren't impressed. I didn't say the speech was the only cause of the drop. Fuck off asswipe.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Cosmiccowboy is just like rush limpballs and the late OBL and Bitch Mcconnell.

[vy65]

I said they weren't impressed. I didn't say the speech was the only cause of the drop. Fuck off asswipe.

lol your right - a 30 minute speech didn't offset the market-disturbance caused by the European Bernanke stepping down. Good point :tu

[Spurminator]

What is Congress supposed to pass? They can't pass a speech.

You already said that, Crookshanks.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44449392/ns/politics-white_house/

Whoops

Pretty funny when even MSNBC calls it bullshit.

[scott]

Honest question: do you think that part of an "analysis of the proposal at hand" should include the viability of its passage through the congress?

I'm not trying to be cute - I thought the plan sounds pretty good. But given the current political climate, how likely will its passage be?

Absolutely.

I'd say... 10%

[Spurminator]

Honest question: do you think that part of an "analysis of the proposal at hand" should include the viability of its passage through the congress?

I'm not trying to be cute - I thought the plan sounds pretty good. But given the current political climate, how likely will its passage be?


I think we should set our standards higher than what the current political climate would allow for. If it's a good plan, it's a good plan regardless of what the opposition is likely to do with it.

If the public disregards ideas that are politically nonviable, how can we ever expect policy to be shaped by anything but politics?

[vy65]

Absolutely.

I'd say... 10%

I thought Obama did a good job coopting a certain amount of the GOP's position by indicating which parts of the AJA had republican support. If the GOP prevents this from going forward, you'd have to think that some people would hold them accountable for flip-flopping. If they balk, it'd seem like they'd be doing exactly what Obama chided them for: putting political interests above the national interest.

[ElNono]

What is Congress supposed to pass? They can't pass a speech.

Next time you hear filibuster, that's what probably they're supposed to pass.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Pretty funny when even MSNBC calls it bullshit.

I had to make sure I got it from a credible newsource. They sell Obama merchandise at the NBC store so this has to be true...

[CosmicCowboy]

The "plan" as presented? Zero percent. He boldfaced claimed that his "plan" would be "100% paid for" when all he will do is give the "supercommittee" some "suggestions" next week. Even the most partisan intellectual lightweights in here should be able to agree that is total bullshit.

[vy65]

I think we should set our standards higher than what the current political climate would allow for. If it's a good plan, it's a good plan regardless of what the opposition is likely to do with it.

If the public disregards ideas that are politically nonviable, how can we ever expect policy to be shaped by anything but politics?

I think this is a really good point. For me, there's a twofold problem: 1) how do you educate the public and 2) how does that education translate to actual policy?

That's why, in the meantime, you gotta play political games to some extent - which means - you have to consider a policy's viability vis-a-vis the political climate.

[ElNono]

If they balk, it'd seem like they'd be doing exactly what Obama chided them for: putting political interests above the national interest.


That's why we conservative hope he fails.

We'll see if the GOP has fully transformed in the WC, Crookskanks and Darrin party.

[Spurminator]

That was an AP article, guys.

[ElNono]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44449392/ns/politics-white_house/

Whoops

Wouldn't surprise me, but I'll wait for the details that he article itself says will be sent next week. On the other hand, it's good to see a President that at least brings to the table the topic of paying for the proposed programs.

[SnakeBoy]

SnakeBoy is the only poster of decidedly conservative leaning

Tbh, I'm a Reagan conservative...which is a liberal by the talk radio conservatives standards.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Wouldn't surprise me, but I'll wait for the details that he article itself says will be sent next week. On the other hand, it's good to see a President that at least brings to the table the topic of paying for the proposed programs.

For your first sentence, me too. I mean this was only a speech. Rhetoric, if you will, until it's on paper and looked over

For your second sentence, I'd think any concerned President would do that in a time like this. Now whether it's done in vain or not is a completely different question. Just saying "pass this now" and talking at a louder volume than usual doesn't make him any more intelligent or proactive.

[MannyIsGod]

No president does a single thing in public that isn't built around politics. Not sure why there's some shock at that.

[ducks]

do you realize the president can't 'create' jobs, right?

serious question

if he can not why in the hell did he give a speech on it then

[TeyshaBlue]

list all the net positives for Human-Americans by dubya's gang, or GFY.

Take it to your VRWC rant-thread..it's Scott's OP, idiot.:rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

Scott, nor anybody else here, has the balls to list the net positives for dubya's reign. so GFY

[ElNono]

For your first sentence, me too. I mean this was only a speech. Rhetoric, if you will, until it's on paper and looked over

For your second sentence, I'd think any concerned President would do that in a time like this. Now whether it's done in vain or not is a completely different question. Just saying "pass this now" and talking at a louder volume than usual doesn't make him any more intelligent or proactive.

I certainly stated as much in my initial post. Less talk, more action. Ultimately though, other than the veto, it's not up to Barry to get this done and on his desk to sign. So let's see what Congress does.

As far as "any concerned President would do that in a time like this", well, we've had a lot of programs adding billions in obligations before and the "who's going to pay for this" never entered the picture. I don't know that "now" is really different than "then", tbh. IMO, I hope the trends continue and at least we get some sort of explanation on how this is going to get paid.

[CosmicCowboy]

I certainly stated as much in my initial post. Less talk, more action. Ultimately though, other than the veto, it's not up to Barry to get this done and on his desk to sign. So let's see what Congress does.

As far as "any concerned President would do that in a time like this", well, we've had a lot of programs adding billions in obligations before and the "who's going to pay for this" never entered the picture. I don't know that "now" is really different than "then", tbh. IMO, I hope the trends continue and at least we get some sort of explanation on how this is going to get paid.

As much as you despise the tea party and republicans you should give credit where credit is due. They are demanding at least an attempt at fiscal responsibility.

[ElNono]

As much as you despise the tea party and republicans you should give credit where credit is due. They are demanding at least an attempt at fiscal responsibility.

I would love to give the GOP credit, except that it's just lip service much like the Dems. When they ran this shit they kept on piling up the debt, even when handed a balanced budget. And the thought of explaining how we're going to pay for, ie, Medicare Part D never crossed their minds, it seems.

I gave the GOP Congress during the Clinton era all the credit. They worked with the President towards that goal and shit got done. The current crop is a shame to the nation. The whole "I want the President to fail" is the epitome of not giving a shit about you, me or the country. That WC or the resident team players say it is not surprising, but when a Congressman does, you can't tell me there's nothing wrong there.

As far as the Tea Party, just like any other extremist group, you have to buy the whole package, and I just disagree with the majority of what they're selling. I might agree with a thing or two in their platform, but from the Tea Potty's perspective I'm a despicable centrist and part of the problem. Just the norm with extremists.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

So, nothing extreme about "pass this bill" or, basically, else?

Else meaning, I'll, basically, tattle on you...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

As far as "any concerned President would do that in a time like this", well, we've had a lot of programs adding billions in obligations before and the "who's going to pay for this" never entered the picture. I don't know that "now" is really different than "then", tbh. IMO, I hope the trends continue and at least we get some sort of explanation on how this is going to get paid.

:lol you don't know why "now" is any different??? That's funny.

[Wild Cobra]

In June of this year, Recovery Act funding was still supporting up to 2.9 million jobs. This chart tracks the change in employment that occurred following the passage of the Recovery Act:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/recoveryactjobs0909.png

I get it. You guys say the 2009 recovery act was the only thing that changed in the economy...

Well, it seems to me the numbers on the graph were ready to rise already. they were already bouncing on the floor for 3 months before the recovery act!

[ElNono]

So, nothing extreme about "pass this bill" or, basically, else?

Else meaning, I'll, basically, tattle on you...

"I ask Congress to reform our immigration laws so they reflect our values and benefit our economy."

Who said that?

I don't find extreme at all urging Congress to do what people voted them to do.


:lol you don't know why "now" is any different??? That's funny.

No, I don't. I thought deficit spending was deficit spending. Care to explain?

[ElNono]

I get it. You guys say the 2009 recovery act was the only thing that changed in the economy...

Well, it seems to me the numbers on the graph were ready to rise already. they were already bouncing on the floor for 3 months before the recovery act!

That's when the bailout passed, and banks stopped going bankrupt. Recession ensued.

[boutons_deux]

"They are demanding at least an attempt at fiscal responsibility."

hypocritical BS. Ryan's plan was shown to increase the deficit.

St Ronnie and dubya both doubled or tripled the debt, where was the fiscal discipline then?

And we all see that the tea baggers and Repugs want fiscal discipline applied only to the lower 95% or 98%, not to UCA, not to the wealthy, for which they want zero UCA income taxes and zero capital gains taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44449392/ns/politics-white_house/

Whoops

LOL...

Cutting social security and medicare in half (4.2% to 2.1% and 1.45% to 0.725%) saving the typical; American family $1500 means the "typical family" makes $53100.35 a year!

I'm sorry, but how much does it help the people who really need the help? Since liberals don't believe in "trickle down economics," how does it help?

We need to bring jobs back to America. That's our problem. New jobs aren't coming because they are in Asia and elsewhere. Sure, McDonald's will be hiring as more people fix their budgets and have more extra cash... Why can't congress fix it's budget, and why does the president want to spend so much more than we can afford?

I can only conclude the democrats want to bankrupt this country.

Yep, it's paid for....

On the backs of our progeny. Soon it will be too heavy, and we will collapse as a nation.

The USSA

United Socialistic States of America.

[boutons_deux]

If the Repugs GAS about fiscal discpline

they wouldn't start two wars AND cut taxes

they wouldn't start Medicare Part D with no funding

etc, etc, etc,

[vy65]

I would love to give the GOP credit, except that it's just lip service much like the Dems. When they ran this shit they kept on piling up the debt, even when handed a balanced budget. And the thought of explaining how we're going to pay for, ie, Medicare Part D never crossed their minds, it seems.

I gave the GOP Congress during the Clinton era all the credit. They worked with the President towards that goal and shit got done. The current crop is a shame to the nation. The whole "I want the President to fail" is the epitome of not giving a shit about you, me or the country. That WC or the resident team players say it is not surprising, but when a Congressman does, you can't tell me there's nothing wrong there.

As far as the Tea Party, just like any other extremist group, you have to buy the whole package, and I just disagree with the majority of what they're selling. I might agree with a thing or two in their platform, but from the Tea Potty's perspective I'm a despicable centrist and part of the problem. Just the norm with extremists.

It's not just that though. Democrats, liberals, independants, etc... can give all the credit in the world to the GOP and the tea-party. But why should any party that acts like a terrorist and threaten to burn the whole house (see the debt ceiling) be given any credit other than a big fuck you?

[ElNono]

I'm sorry, but how much does it help the people who really need the help? Since liberals don't believe in "trickle down economics," how does it help?

Conversely, since you do believe in "trickle down economics", you do think it will help?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not just that though. Democrats, liberals, independants, etc... can give all the credit in the world to the GOP and the tea-party. But why should any party that acts like a terrorist and threaten to burn the whole house (see the debt ceiling) be given any credit other than a big fuck you?

:lmao

Rachel is that you?

They didn't burn the house down. They didn't act like terrorists.

They said we need to make serious budget cuts without tax increases and stuck to their guns.

Obama wanted to blame the greedy rich and play class warfare.

He ended up folding like a cheap lawn chair.

Don't be bitter, bitch.

[vy65]

:lmao

Rachel is that you?

They didn't burn the house down. They didn't act like terrorists.

They said we need to make serious budget cuts without tax increases and stuck to their guns.

Obama wanted to blame the greedy rich and play class warfare.

He ended up folding like a cheap lawn chair.

Don't be bitter, bitch.

Why was the debt-ceiling along with the risk of defualt and the debt-downgrade a good time to make all those points? Why couldn't they have made a good faith bipartisan effort to get their message across? Why was it responsible to risk everything the Tea party did?

I get that you're an anti-intellectual, red-neck buffoon that thinks last night's speech caused the market to drop today, so please make an effort to give a good explanation to these questions. And just so that you understand: that means more explanation than the "nuh uh" you gave above. Thanks!

[ElNono]

This is the problem. I want Congress to do work for us. I want them to do politics on the campaign trail, not in DC. What we have right now is political chicanery and nothing gets done. And I say this about both parties. One thing Barry was spot on last night is that a lot of people don't have 14 months to wait around watching them fuck around.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why was the debt-ceiling along with the risk of defualt and the debt-downgrade a good time to make all those points? Why couldn't they have made a good faith bipartisan effort to get their message across? Why was it responsible to risk everything the Tea party did?

I get that you're an anti-intellectual, red-neck buffoon that thinks last night's speech caused the market to drop today, so please make an effort to give a good explanation to these questions. And just so that you understand: that means more explanation than the "nuh uh" you gave above. Thanks!

I get that you are a fucking idiot. "intellectual"? :lmao

It was politics. Both sides played. Obama folded.

And don't give me that "bi-partisan" crap. There was no bi-partisanship on either side. Of, Obama "talked" compromise and made vague non-committal statements in his teleprompter speeches but he NEVER produced any written plan.

You shouldn't be so butt hurt.

[vy65]

So you have no explanation why using the debt-ceiling was responsible politicking?


And don't give me that "bi-partisan" crap. There was no bi-partisanship on either side. Of, Obama "talked" compromise and made vague non-committal statements in his teleprompter speeches but he NEVER produced any written plan.

So other than showing that you have problems writing sentences, how is this not you admitting that at least one side is making a gesture towards cooperation while the other are terrorists?

[vy65]

So lemme get this straight: CC thinks the Tea party aren't terrorists because Obama never produced a written plan?

lol anti-intellectual redneck buffoon

[ElNono]

Well, Barry definitely did get the debt ceiling raised, and AFAIK, no spending cuts to be seen yet. Not sure who "folded". The thing is, building uncertainty in a weak economy and acting like mercenaries didn't particularly sit well with me either. Don't like it when the Dems do it either.

[vy65]

It was just a stupid fucking thing to do - there was absolutely 0 reason why the issue of government spending had to be tied to the debt ceiling. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that government spending isn't a problem - but don't risk default to have your way.

[ElNono]

It was just a stupid fucking thing to do - there was absolutely 0 reason why the issue of government spending had to be tied to the debt ceiling. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that government spending isn't a problem - but don't risk default to have your way.

Plus it's pure fantasy thinking you can make enough cuts to balance the budget with these historically low tax rates, tbh. Even more so if you don't want to touch defense spending.

There's a place to discuss that, and that's during budget negotiations.

But it isn't just the debt ceiling. The filibuster has become a seemingly daily use tool to get nothing done. I think it's a legitimate tool for what was intended, and it's being bastardized the way it's being used.

[vy65]

But it isn't just the debt ceiling. The filibuster has become a seemingly daily use tool to get nothing done. I think it's a legitimate tool for what was intended, and it's being bastardized the way it's being used.

I read that and I reminded of this:

Carl von Clausewitz: "War is a continuation of politics by other means"

Michel Foucault: "Politics is a continuation of war by other means"

[Wild Cobra]

One thing Barry was spot on last night is that a lot of people don't have 14 months to wait around watching them fuck around.
Yes, but it's all just rhetoric also.

He said a few things I liked, but that was the intent of that 30+ minute set of lies. To find something to appeal to everyone.

[ElNono]

Yes, but it's all just rhetoric also.

No, it's not all rhetoric. A lot of people don't have 14 months to wait around watching them fuck around.

[Nbadan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/09/08/National-Economy/Graphics/w-Obama.jpg

[SA210]

Why would a conservative hope Obama fails? Under Obama, conservatives have never had it so good. Expanded wars, privatization of public education, rolling back of EPA regulations, further erosion of civil liberties, tax cuts upon tax cuts, wall street cock-suckery, industry bailouts and on and on. Obama is Bush's third term. Plus you've got the deeply dishonest and ruthless pleasure of trying to frame America's first black Republican President as a dangerous socialist. Genius!

Consider that you've got a so-called Democratic president cynically using a jobs speech to push for cuts to Medicare.

Also the "we've got to slash Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid in order to save it" is the IDENTICAL position staked out by Romney in the previous night's debate.

If Obama wins you get conservative policy, if Obama loses at the very least you get Romney.

Claims that Conservatives want Obama to fail are about as convincing as claims that Obama is a socialist.

http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/imagecache/feature400/black_jobless02.jpg

:tu

[SA210]

Teleprompter in Chief

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

No, it's not all rhetoric. A lot of people don't have 14 months to wait around watching them fuck around.
I agree, but how do you bring jobs back withing any reasonable time?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/09/08/National-Economy/Graphics/w-Obama.jpg
Yes Propaganda Dan/Mouse/Cosmored...

We all know the unemployment rate has decreased, but that's because people gave up on looking for work.

[scott]

We all know the unemployment rate has decreased, but that's because people gave up on looking for work.

Well that and... you know... like, more people had jobs.

Total Non-Farm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted:
October 2009: 129,505,000
August 2011: 131,132,000

[boutons_deux]

Perspectives never to forget:

US has to create 125K+ jobs PER MONTH to keep up with increase in population of new job seekers.

Both parties have been redefining "unemployed" more narrowly for decades, so the numbers look better (smaller) to the party in office, so the 9%+ is way understated.

There are still 5 or 6 job seekers per job offered.

( "They're lazy losers and welfare cheaters. --WC )"

Repugs scorched-earth campaign of pro-cyclical spending cuts will make unemployment worse, their sociopathic strategy for the 2012 campaign. Max pain for the max number of people, and blame it all on Barry.

[boutons_deux]

While McConnell Opposes Infrastructure Investment, Major Kentucky Bridge Shuts Down Over Safety Concerns

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/SMB.jpg

The Sherman Minton Bridge was closed late Friday afternoon and will remain shut down indefinitely after officials discovered cracks in the span.

Will Wingfield, a spokesman for the Indiana Department of Transportation, said officials “do not have an estimate” on how long it will take to repair and reopen the bridge, which carries Interstate 64 traffic across the Ohio River.

But while McConnell insists that Republicans “agree that we must bring America’s infrastructure up to 21st century standards,” his recent record doesn’t show it. When progressives and Democrats argued that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should be geared toward infrastructure, the GOP under McConnell’s leadership fought to focus it on tax cuts. The Senate GOP derailed a 2010 jobs plan focused largely on infrastructure investment, and if McConnell’s post-speech rhetoric is to be believed, he will be at the forefront of the Republican Party’s opposition to this plan too.


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/10/316190/while-mcconnell-opposes-infrastructure-investment-major-kentucky-bridge-shuts-down-over-safety-concerns/

[Wild Cobra]

That's when the bailout passed, and banks stopped going bankrupt. Recession ensued.
I see...

Don't you think the banks doing harm should have gone bankrupt, allowing those who did things right to provide the good service?

[ElNono]

I see...

I'm glad.

[ElNono]

Don't you think the banks doing harm should have gone bankrupt, allowing those who did things right to provide the good service?

Well, that's a different point. But it wasn't this administration bailing out the banks either.

We're talking about jobs.

[boutons_deux]

Talking about jobs AND banks ...

BoA is in discussions to cut up 40K jobs over the next few years.

Yves Smith continues his "BoA death watch"

[Wild Cobra]

Well that and... you know... like, more people had jobs.

Total Non-Farm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted:
October 2009: 129,505,000
August 2011: 131,132,000
Why do some people get confused so easy with simple math? Bet you had a liberal pundit point this out.

Your 2009 to 2011 jobs were a growth of 1.26%. That's a bit shy of the 1.87% population growth.

If we use the population growth between the 2000 and 2010 census, we grew at a rate of 0.931% annually. We can assume with these numbers a 1.87% increase in population between 2009 and 2011. If we take the 2009 number and increase it by 1.87%, we get 131,927,428. Therefore jobs grew slower than population. These simple facts matter.

[ElNono]

How much of that new population enter the job market though?

Babies don't work, IIRC.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, that's a different point. But it wasn't this administration bailing out the banks either.

We're talking about jobs.
Job bailouts aren't possible. Sure, we can in the short term, but unless we actually make a way for jobs to stop being exported and return to America, we are doomed anyway. Why do you want to take everyone down on a sinking ship? There are only so many life rafts on this Titanic problem.

[ElNono]

Job bailouts aren't possible.

What do you think extending unemployment is?

[boutons_deux]

How much of that new population enter the job market though?

Babies don't work, IIRC.

dumbfuck. the number of first-time people entering the job market more or less matches the number of babies born, then throw in all the legal and illegal immigrants.

[Wild Cobra]

What do you think extending unemployment is?
You mean an insurance with a limited period?

It's a bailout once you extend it. Besides I said "Sure, we can in the short term..."

Question becomes, what good is it to do so if we have no jobs for them to go to? We cannot keep redistributing wealth indefinably at these levels.

[ElNono]

dumbfuck. the number of first-time people entering the job market more or less matches the number of babies born, then throw in all the legal and illegal immigrants.

dumbfuck, I doubt people from the 2000-2010 census is entering the job market. He would have a stronger point picking the population growth rate from the 1980-1990 census, or arguably the 1990-2000 census.

[ElNono]

You mean an insurance with a limited period?

It's a bailout once you extend it. Besides I said "Sure, we can in the short term..."

I mean unemployment benefits. How many times have they been extended now?

[Wild Cobra]

dumbfuck, I doubt people from the 2000-2010 census is entering the job market. He would have a stronger point picking the population growth rate from the 1980-1990 census, or arguably the 1990-2000 census.
The whole point I made was that population growth is greater than job growth, and this matters. The annual average for the 1990 to 2000 population increase was 1.24%, or 2.5% for the two year span. This would be closer to the people entering the job market, but not all in the job market are new babies. We have immigration too, and people in their teens entering the job market.

I knew when I posted this, the older numbers are better. however, I took the lesser one since it still shows a deficit in job growth vs. population growth.

[Wild Cobra]

I mean unemployment benefits. How many times have they been extended now?
I don't know. Lost count.

Do you think we can keep this spending up is we can't put people back to work in good paying jobs?

[ElNono]

The whole point I made was that population growth is greater than job growth, and this matters.

Sure it matters. That said, scott is right that more jobs where created in 2011 than in 2009, and that obviously helps reduce unemployment numbers.

Not sure how 'adjusting for population growth' changes that fact.

[ElNono]

Do you think we can keep this spending up is we can't put people back to work in good paying jobs?

I think that if there would be good paying jobs, they wouldn't need to be in the unemployment benefits program. Evidently, those good paying jobs aren't there. I would guess they're in India now.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure it matters. That said, scott is right that more jobs where created in 2011 than in 2009, and that obviously helps reduce unemployment numbers.

Not sure how 'adjusting for population growth' changes that fact.
Not sure?

In reality, less a percentage of the population has jobs. Yes, technically more people have jobs than before, but technically, even more people don't! When you apply the same standard, it's still a loss of employment per capita.

[Wild Cobra]

I think that if there would be good paying jobs, they wouldn't need to be in the unemployment benefits program. Evidently, those good paying jobs aren't there. I would guess they're in India now.
So I ask again. How long can we sustain these expenditures? When will the war on poverty be won?

[boutons_deux]

"we sustain these expenditures"

and you exclude the $80B just approved for NatSec, and $7T+ for next 10 years of MIC spending, the $Ts for the wars and maintaining USA's global hegemony?

[ElNono]

Not sure?

In reality, less a percentage of the population has jobs. Yes, technically more people have jobs than before, but technically, even more people don't! When you apply the same standard, it's still a loss of employment per capita.

But your contention was the unemployment was reduced. Your claim was that's because of people stopping to look for work. Another reason is that jobs were created. That's a fact too.

[ElNono]

So I ask again. How long can we sustain these expenditures? When will the war on poverty be won?

What "war on poverty"?

How long? Well, as long as the guys in DC decide to keep extending it, I guess.

[scott]

The whole point I made was that population growth is greater than job growth, and this matters. The annual average for the 1990 to 2000 population increase was 1.24%, or 2.5% for the two year span. This would be closer to the people entering the job market, but not all in the job market are new babies. We have immigration too, and people in their teens entering the job market.

I knew when I posted this, the older numbers are better. however, I took the lesser one since it still shows a deficit in job growth vs. population growth.

Just wanted to briefly chime in to let you folks know the BLS already provides the info you are trying to get at - working age population statistics:

http://www.bls.gov/fls/flscomparelf/population.htm#table4_1 (You can download more detailed info in the spreadsheet link provided).

A few quick factors to take into account are:

This is an estimate of everyone in the US over the age of 16. That means a 95 year old counts the same as a 25 year old in terms of a "person who can work". Where this is of note is that we have a growing elderly population that traditional does not participate in the labor force (though it is worth noting that a 65 year old today is almost 50% more likely to participate in the labor force than one 20 years ago, either by virtue of needing the job or our old folks being more able to work - here are some demographics on our elderly: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0034.pdf).

Of note, the working age population growth rate in 2009 and 2010 (versus their previous year) are at the lowest levels ever recorded (since the statistic started being officially recorded by the BLS in 1970).

Anyway, you did have a valid point originally that labor force participation rates are at low levels not seen since the mid-80s. Interestingly, it's men who are the ones dropping out of the labor force, women are near their historic norm and now comprise the largest % of the workforce ever seen. My comment was in response to:


We all know the unemployment rate has decreased, but that's because people gave up on looking for work.

Which is not completely honest. The correct statement would have been:

We all know the unemployment rate has decreased, but that's because more people are employed, labor force participation is way down, we have an increased elderly population, and working age population growth since 2008 has been at historically low levels.


and this matters

[boutons_deux]

"interestingly, it's men who are the ones dropping out of the labor force"

for the same job, women are paid 30% less than men, so businesses will layoff and not hire men ahead of women, except at the top, where the male clubbiness keeps women out.

the labor force participation is down, no mystery at all, not because people (esp men, blacks, young) can afford not to work, but because there are not enough jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

But your contention was the unemployment was reduced. Your claim was that's because of people stopping to look for work. Another reason is that jobs were created. That's a fact too.
Yet the per capita jobs are less than before.

[ElNono]

Yet the per capita jobs are less than before.

I know you want to rapidly move the goalposts, but he didn't list per capita, but overall number of jobs.

[Wild Cobra]

I know you want to rapidly move the goalposts, but he didn't list per capita, but overall number of jobs.
Yes, and I pointed out that was an incorrect way to gauge things since population also increases.

Is that too hard to comprehend?

[ElNono]

Yes, and I pointed out that was an incorrect way to gauge things since population also increases.

Is that too hard to comprehend?

But it isn't incorrect. There's nothing incorrect about it.

BTW, nobody said you were wrong. Just that you were overlooking other things, like actual job increase.

[boutons_deux]

Barry sends his jobs/stimulus bill to Congress today.

How quickly will the Repugs gut or block it?

[desflood]

Faster than you can say "Russian Breadlines".

[Winehole23]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/08/senate-approves-500-billion-increase-in-borrowing-authority/?mod=google_news_blog

[ManuBalboa]

Democrats, check in here on how awesome he did.

Republicans, check in on how he is destroying America.

Hard to judge his proposals without actually seeing them, but they seem pretty rockin' and rollin' - of course the issue will be the suggested tax increases on the top tier.

Curious that one of the last things he said: "The next election is 14 months away - [Americans] can't wait 14 months" got the standing O from both parties considering its all the wackjobs in that room that are preventing progress by putting their re-electability first.

On the political front, Obama laid the groundwork for what I believe will be the Democrats message in the 2012 elections: "Those are the guys who prevented us from doing anything in the name of politics." Bold move.

Lastly, Obama is a damn good speaker regardless of what you feel of his politics. His level of public speaking ability should be an absolutely minimum requirement for the office of President (just as it would for a Fortune 500 CEO).

lmao lmao lmao lmao

What makes him a good public speaker exactly?

And how are grown ass people still falling for empty words...

[boutons_deux]

Obama Jobs Plan: Federal Aid For States Splits Democrats, Republicans

The perspective of governors and state lawmakers varies but often follows political affiliation, with Democrats generally praising Obama's plan and Republicans remaining skeptical.

Obama's plan has to clear a politically divided Congress, which could scuttle it entirely or enact bits and pieces of it. As envisioned by Obama, state and local governments would receive $50 billion for transportation projects, $35 billion for school, police and fire department payrolls, $30 billion to modernize public schools and community colleges, and $15 billion to refurbish vacant and foreclosed homes or businesses.

With another round of money, "the federal government may be able to play a critical role in helping states close their budget gaps," said David Adkins, executive director of the Council of State Governments.

But he said the prospects for receiving the money appear "very, very slim" given the focus on reducing government spending among Republicans in Congress. He said state government leaders are more interested in long-term stable federal funding for transportation projects and education programs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/obama-jobs-plan-federal-aid-states_n_958103.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

============

Repugs are against anything that would be a success for Barry and a positive for Human-Americans. They much rather keep the states and municipalities in maximum pain until Nov 2012, after which if they win, they will DO NOTHING to help the states and municipalities and Human-Americans.

[ElNono]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/08/senate-approves-500-billion-increase-in-borrowing-authority/?mod=google_news_blog

But I though Barry folded in the debt-ceiling conundrum? :rolleyes

Was expected, but didn't know it was going to be this soon.

[boutons_deux]

"The complicated procedure, designed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), would allow an increase of the borrowing limit while allowing most Republicans to vote against such an increase.

Only Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) broke from his party to vote with the Republicans in trying to move forward with the measure."

Ben "Horse's Ass" Nelson votes with Bithc McConnel, yet again. Is one reason why the 2009-2010 Dems NEVER had a super-majority, except in name only.