President Obama's Job Creation Initiative Framework Speeches

[Gaspar]

Thought I'd start a new thread for this evening's address.

This morning, Jay Carney said somthing very interesting.  He told Faux News that "Any economist worth their PHD will tell you that tax cuts create jobs."  So it seems that he's also framing the president's speech tonight to soften the blow of tax cuts. 

The estimated number has also climbed to $400 Billion in tax cuts and stimulus projects revolving around bridges and road work.  I find that strange since there is still hundreds of billions left from the last stimulus that has yet to be spent on these "shovel-ready" projects.

The administration is now saying that tonight's speech is not going to be the plan, it's going to be more of a framework to be followed up by a second speech after congress returns from their 5 day recess. A list of initiatives is gong to be delivered to congress before they go on break, and then the president will go over those upon his/congresses return.

So now I am a bit discouraged by the prospect that we are simply going to get more of the same.  Porkulus II perhaps.  And why, when the nation is facing a crisis must the president, congress and those responsible for the economic uncertainty get license to drag things out through vacations, golf outings and recesses?

Best thing Congress could do is remain in session, complete and approve any initiatives and deliver to the president's desk so that he can sign something after his Sunday round.

[Townsend]

Out of curiosity does anyone think this thread will lead to anything constructive or is it just an attempt to throw out opinions and attacks on anything the author disagrees with?

I'll take my answer off the air.

[RecycleMichael]

gaspar has an Obama insult de jour.

Nothing to see here.

[dbacks fan]

Thought I'd start a new thread for this evening's address.

This morning, Jay Carney said somthing very interesting.  He told Faux News that "Any economist worth their PHD will tell you that tax cuts create jobs."  So it seems that he's also framing the president's speech tonight to soften the blow of tax cuts.  

The estimated number has also climbed to $400 Billion in tax cuts and stimulus projects revolving around bridges and road work.  I find that strange since there is still hundreds of billions left from the last stimulus that has yet to be spent on these "shovel-ready" projects.

Yes, all the "shovel ready projects" that were blocked in some way by the Republicans.

The administration is now saying that tonight's speech is not going to be the plan, it's going to be more of a framework to be followed up by a second speech after congress returns from their 5 day recess. A list of initiatives is gong to be delivered to congress before they go on break, and then the president will go over those upon his/congresses return.

So in other words it will be nothing but part three (or is it part four?) of Obama's jobs plan that we have been hearing about since the campaign in 2008.

So now I am a bit discouraged by the prospect that we are simply going to get more of the same.  Porkulus II perhaps.  And why, when the nation is facing a crisis must the president, congress and those responsible for the economic uncertainty get license to drag things out through vacations, golf outings and recesses?

Best thing Congress could do is remain in session, complete and approve any initiatives and deliver to the president's desk so that he can sign something after his Sunday round.

I call it his re-election campaign.

[we vs us]

John Boehner to House Republicans:  Please Attend Obama's Speech

"Every member of the House of Representatives should attend President Barack Obama's address on job creation tonight, House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday in response to reports that several in his caucus are planning to skip the speech.

"He is the president of the United States and I believe that all members ought to be here to do this. Doesn't mean they're going to," Boehner told reporters Thursday morning after a conference meeting with fellow Republicans. "Remember, I'm just the speaker. There are 434 colleagues who have their own opinions and they're entitled to them. But as an institution, the president is coming at our invitation. We ought to be respectful, and we ought to welcome him."

Republican lawmakers in both chambers, including Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who said he would attend an NFL kickoff party instead, have announced they won't attend.

The speech, during which Obama is expected outline a proposal the White House says will reduce the nation's unemployment rate, has been a point of contention from the moment administration officials announced the president's plans. The White House initially requested to speak to Congress on the same night as a Republican presidential debate (held Wednesday evening), a request that Boehner denied. The parties agreed to hold the speech Thursday instead.

Republicans also announced that they would not prepare an on-air response to the president's proposal immediately following the speech, a decision House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said was "disrespectful."

"Listen, this is not the State of the Union address," Boehner said when asked Thursday why Republicans would not give an official televised response. "The American people shouldn't be forced to watch some politician they don't want to listen to. And frankly, most of them would rather watch the football game." (The Green Bay Packers are scheduled to play the New Orleans Saints in the first game of the NFL season immediately after Obama's speech.)

Lawmakers are expected to flood Statutory Hall after the speech tonight--the room in the Capitol building next to the House chamber where Obama will deliver his address--to give their own responses.

"I think it's a more appropriate and respectful way to go forward," Boehner said.

Such is life in an democracy idiocracy.

[dbacks fan]

I figured that most Repubs, would be meeting with Rand Paul yesterday and today as a reason to not attend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/07/rand-paul-calls-for-no-confidence-vote-on-geithner/

[Gaspar]

On the contrary.  This is President Obama's opportunity to shine.  All we know right now is quips of information coming out of the White House, and media noise.

President Obama may take this opportunity to embrace the economic crisis and propose actions that will increase confidence, and make it easier for the private sector to engage some of the money they have been hording into increased production.  If the money is there, as both democrats and republicans claim, the only obstacle to moving that money into the market is confidence.  Right?

The first stimulus did little to move that private sector money because it, as well as the ancillary injections of capital, did little to increase private sector confidence in the administration's ability to maintain economic stability.  On the contrary, because the original stimulus represented a disjointed collection of obscure programs and infrastructural spending, unemployment went from 7.5% to almost 10%.  The stimulus also included additional injections of capital in the form of payroll tax decreases that should have also had a more profound impact, but consumers stopped consuming in the face of growing unemployment and the chance that they might need that capital to survive in the new economy.  Businesses horded cash and individuals horded cash.  The public bought gold, and companies invested in strategies to keep their staff at a minimum by increasing efficiency. The Keynesian approach worked exactly as Mises, Hume, Reagan, and the Austrian school anticipated it would.  The economy began to cystate.

The good news for President Obama is that business is in a holding pattern, ready to pounce the moment confidence is restored.  He has a loaded starting gun.

All the president needs to do is focus on the job creator rather than just the job.  If he's willing, he could take 2 minutes in his speech to promise to the American public that he is going to eliminate the obstacles that job creators are concerned about.  2 Minutes of the president's time, could result in the spark that turns the whole economy around.  Without spending a single penny of our money, in a single paragraph of his speech he could fundamentally change the direction of the economy, and the immediate response from the private sector would force the senate to acquiesce to his leadership.  We could wake up tomorrow to frantic optimism in the private sector.

or

He could propose new immediate taxes, extend unemployment, build more ADA crosswalks in Hulbert and Lost City that don't connect to any sidewalks.  He could extend payroll tax deductions and leave your paycheck unchanged from last week. He could offer an extra incentive of $2,000 for your employer to hire extra staff.  He could add more money to the existing unspent funds to replace bridges and rail roads. He could attempt to fund these efforts with eminent tax increases in 2013 or 2014.  All fine Keynesian ideas that will produce the exact same results in the minds of the job creators.  We could wake up tomorrow to the exact same feeling we had after his first stimulus speech over 2 years ago.

[Conan71]

"My fellow Americans, it's obvious we are still hurting for jobs in this country (I'm set for life, the rest of you are pretty much on your own to figure out how to get a job).  I've spent a lot of time contemplating this problem even when I've been on vacation (My celebrity friends I hang out with don't have a clue how a job is created either).  

"U.S. companies and their executives (ahem, the evil rich) simply are not willing to take the risks necessary right now to create more jobs, so we have to assume that risk for them and take the reins on creating jobs through asset reapportionment (that's wealth re-distribution for those of you who listen to Limbaugh).  Companies and investors are sitting on too much cash, they don't have a right to do that while millions starve looking for work.  They would rather give that money to the re-election campaigns of their wealthy Republican friends in Congress.  Well, I'm going to stop that.  I'm going to take that money and use it to extend unemployment benefits, give unions more road projects, and loan money to all sorts of poor risks in alternative energy.  Then I'm going to order another census in the spring so we can inflate the jobs numbers for a few months.  

"When all that fails, I'm going to ask you to look back at the last four years of my administration and realize this was ALL President Bush's fault.  

"Thank you and good night."

[we vs us]

On the contrary.  This is President Obama's opportunity to shine.  All we know right now is quips of information coming out of the White House, and media noise.

President Obama may take this opportunity to embrace the economic crisis and propose actions that will increase confidence, and make it easier for the private sector to engage some of the money they have been hording into increased production.  If the money is there, as both democrats and republicans claim, the only obstacle to moving that money into the market is confidence.  Right?

The first stimulus did little to move that private sector money because it, as well as the ancillary injections of capital, did little to increase private sector confidence in the administration's ability to maintain economic stability.  On the contrary, because the original stimulus represented a disjointed collection of obscure programs and infrastructural spending, unemployment went from 7.5% to almost 10%.  The stimulus also included additional injections of capital in the form of payroll tax decreases that should have also had a more profound impact, but consumers stopped consuming in the face of growing unemployment and the chance that they might need that capital to survive in the new economy.  Businesses horded cash and individuals horded cash.  The public bought gold, and companies invested in strategies to keep their staff at a minimum by increasing efficiency. The Keynesian approach worked exactly as Mises, Hume, Reagan, and the Austrian school anticipated it would.  The economy began to cystate.

The good news for President Obama is that business is in a holding pattern, ready to pounce the moment confidence is restored.  He has a loaded starting gun.

All the president needs to do is focus on the job creator rather than just the job.  If he's willing, he could take 2 minutes in his speech to promise to the American public that he is going to eliminate the obstacles that job creators are concerned about.  2 Minutes of the president's time, could result in the spark that turns the whole economy around.  Without spending a single penny of our money, in a single paragraph of his speech he could fundamentally change the direction of the economy, and the immediate response from the private sector would force the senate to acquiesce to his leadership.  We could wake up tomorrow to frantic optimism in the private sector.

or

He could propose new immediate taxes, extend unemployment, build more ADA crosswalks in Hulbert and Lost City that don't connect to any sidewalks.  He could extend payroll tax deductions and leave your paycheck unchanged from last week. He could offer an extra incentive of $2,000 for your employer to hire extra staff.  He could add more money to the existing unspent funds to replace bridges and rail roads. He could attempt to fund these efforts with eminent tax increases in 2013 or 2014.  All fine Keynesian ideas that will produce the exact same results in the minds of the job creators.  We could wake up tomorrow to the exact same feeling we had after his first stimulus speech over 2 years ago.

None of this is worth a diddlydamn if the opposition party refuses to show up and help govern.

[Gaspar]

None of this is worth a diddlydamn if the opposition party refuses to show up and help govern.

Perhaps that's what he's counting on.  After all, he could have given this speech two weeks ago when he told us he was going to give this speech.  A joint session of congress was not warranted (nor is their precedent for it), unless of course he intends to make this a campaign exposition speech.  The presence/absence of members of congress simply offers more points of blame for him.

[Townsend]

Perhaps that's what he's counting on.  After all, he could have given this speech two weeks ago when he told us he was going to give this speech.  A joint session of congress was not warranted (nor is their precedent for it), unless of course he intends to make this a campaign exposition speech.  The presence/absence of members of congress simply offers more points of blame for him.

Why that manipulative bastard...

[we vs us]

Perhaps that's what he's counting on.  After all, he could have given this speech two weeks ago when he told us he was going to give this speech.  A joint session of congress was not warranted (nor is their precedent for it), unless of course he intends to make this a campaign exposition speech.  The presence/absence of members of congress simply offers more points of blame for him.

Are you serious?  That somehow the Republican's refusal to attend can be blamed on Obama?  Because . . . . why?  How does that work exactly? 

 

[AquaMan]

Why that manipulative bastard...

From accounts around here he is neither smart enough or courageous enough to have screwed manipulated those dim bulbs.

[Gaspar]

Are you serious?  That somehow the Republican's refusal to attend can be blamed on Obama?  Because . . . . why?  How does that work exactly? 

 

No, the other way around.  President Obama seems to thrive on blame.  If he can illustrate that it's the Republicans that are unwilling to play, he can deflect the heat by blaming any future economic failure on them.

He could be just setting the stage.

[Conan71]

Are you serious?  That somehow the Republican's refusal to attend can be blamed on Obama?  Because . . . . why?  How does that work exactly? 

 

Because they wanted to go watch the game at Buffalo Wild Wings and the president scheduled the speech to intentionally conflict with those plans, silly.