hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:07 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

I am biased, of course, but that was a hell of a speech in my mind.
I did not hear anything that is likely to make a difference, it was mostly another attempt at stuff that we already have been doing on our road to economic ruin. I am particularly not liking his attempt to prop up school employment, we need to cut the cost of education, who pays the bill is mostly irrelevant. What we should do is scrap No Child Left Behind and take a hatchet to support and management staff, but leave the teachers/ student ratio about the same. Keeping teachers who would have been let go working solves nothing about the actual problem if NCLB remains in force.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:09 pm
@LionTamerX,
It's nice to hear good speeches from our president, but there's a thing called the tea party that will not allow any spending. I'm not sure how Obama can promise that his plan won't cost anything.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Because he is insisting they raise the required limit to be cut from the budget by the super committee to cover the cost.

Quote:
The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next ten years.
It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight,
I’m asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week
from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan – a plan that will not only cover the cost of this
jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:26 pm
@Butrflynet,
The area that I'm having a problem with is called "where's the detail?"
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 06:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

The area that I'm having a problem with is called "where's the detail?"
Where is the big idea that is going to reverse 30 years of degradation of our living wage job base?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
It's not only that, but the fact that there's just so much the tea party/GOP are going to approve spending without knowing how it's going to be paid. I'm just playing devil's advocate, because it worries me when Obama says it's not going to cost anything.

If his committee is finding ways to cut one trillion from spending for the next decade, that's really not savings if he's going to turn around and spend it.

I think he's going to try to do too much with too little. He can't be helping home-owners, cut taxes, and spend money on public works project for just a few billion.

Sounds to me like a campaign speech; there are too many handicaps for him to get congress to approve it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 07:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm not sure how Obama can promise that his plan won't cost anything.
A promise like that means he is either stupid or dishonest, or both. I told you that before you voted for him.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm not sure how Obama can promise that his plan won't cost anything.


I'm not sure he really promised it wouldn't cost anything. Instead he merely postulated that somehow he (or more likely the Congress) will have to find some as yet unspecified cuts to do so.( i.e. these are details for less important people than himself.) I'll agree this is hard to rationalize, given the goals of the Select Committee - to which he agreed - to find a trillion or so of additional cuts as a condition of the increase in the debt ceiling. (I believe you pointed that out in another post.)

My problem is that Obama is playing a political game with a looming public debt crisis, arising primarily from fast growing entitlement costs. Instead of agreeing to address this extraordinarily difficult (and risky) political issue, he is playing a political game and making false promises to the beneficiaries about the likely future of their programs. In these circumstances it is no surprise that the Republicans are intransigent about tax increases or even temporary spending measures.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:15 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:


My problem is that Obama is playing a political game with a looming public debt crisis, arising primarily from fast growing entitlement costs.


There exists no 'looming' debt crisis. But there certainly do exist other crises.

We don't have the luxury of focusing on problems which may arise 20 or 30 years from now - or never. We have issues which must be dealt with immediately.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 08:19 pm
@georgeob1,
That's been one of my major contentions with Obama's inability to address the real cause of our fiscal problems. A bandaide is only temporary, and doesn't address the long-term financial problems facing our country.

How he will help small businesses to get back hiring people must be done through the higher demand for the goods and services they provide. Without higher demand, tax breaks aren't going to do anything for small businesses; it's a slow death knell that will eventually starve the beast.

It's easy talking about South Korea's buying more American brand cars, but it's another thing to create the demand when their own cars and cars from Japan has more attraction for cost and quality.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 10:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Almost any form of new economic activity, whether it is the investment of capital in new plant & equipment, the expansion of physical facilities or hiring new staff will quickly result in new employment and durable, lasting new demand - demand that won't quickly disappear when the Federal giveaway runs out as in the failed "stimulus". This is a word game the current administration uses to imply that only they and government giveaways can increase demand and therefore reduce unemployment.

The fact is if they would simply shut up with the class warfare rhetoric, cancel their vastly expanded mesh of regulations, unprecedented delegations of administrative power to new bureaucracies, mindless restrictions on domestic energy and fossil fuel production, and in the investment of American companies in right to work states .... simply get out of the way, our economy would quickly recover, and would do so with far more efficiency than anyone has claimed for their vaunted stimulus measures. (Even using Cyclo's grossly inflated "estimates" of 2.5 million jobs "created or saved by the last 850 billion stimulus that works t to about $340,000 per job saved -- and that for jobs that quickly vanished when the giveaways ran out. We could have done better just scattering the bills along the highways.)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:21 pm
Ain't Too Proud to Beg: Obama Goes All Out

The president practically got down on one knee during his speech to Congress Thursday night. Will his new approach work?

Quote:
The striking thing about President Obama's speech to Congress on Thursday night wasn't that he called for a jobs plan that included measures he'd pushed before, or that he sucked the attention away from a valuable pregame programming slot in the hour before the first game of the NFL season, a vehicle for working-class Americans to forget the very troubles he wants to alleviate.

It was that Obama practically begged Congress to pass his plan, which includes, among other things, a payroll tax cut, extended unemployment insurance, construction spending, education funds, and trade deals with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea that were initiated by president George W. Bush. (Derek Thompson has a handy guide to seven specifics.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/aint-too-proud-to-beg-obama-goes-all-out/244802/

Interesting..the conventional wisdom read seems to be the Obama was daring the REPUBS to NOT pass his bill. I have not made up my mind on how to read this speech.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:33 pm
@georgeob1,
I disagree with your analysis on how our economy can be improved.

We can start with getting rid of Bernanke and the feds; they are useless as was Greenspan. Their low interest rate only exacerbated the lending problems and speculation that resulted in the currency crisis.

The problem with your assumption about "expansion of physical facilities or hiring new staff" is the simple fact that US companies have been off-shoring more jobs for over two decades now, and many are holding large amounts of cash. Many could have expanded at very low interest rates, but they didn't.

One of the biggest problems facing our country is "class warfare." The top 10% continue to increase their wealth while the middle class and the poor can hardly keep up with inflation, and many are still losing jobs or can't find one.

The only solution to this problem is for our government to invest in this country by spending on infrastructure and education. Not the measly $447 billion Obama wants congress to approve, but something closer to two trillion dollars. There's no way to split up $447 billion into tax cuts, extended benefits for the unemployed, and for infrastructure, and have any long-term effect.

When the $2 trillion is spent on infrastructure and education, the long-term benefits will pay for themselves. Creating jobs for millions across the country to work on our infrastructure, and to keep and hire teachers, will result in higher demand for all consumer goods and services - which in turn will pyramid into more jobs and tax revenues.

Those countries in Europe that have agreed to austerity programs will only make their economies worse off. It will result in more layoff of workers from government jobs, and that will translate into lost jobs in the private sector - for reducing the demand for all goods and services. They are only ensuring a slow death. Tax revenue will dry up, and their ability to pay on their bonds will disappear.

The only issue that needs to be addressed is accountability for spending such huge amounts of money directed to the programs it was meant for; we all know how sloppy governments can get when they control obscene amounts of money. There should be checks and balances to ensure no money is wasted on fraud, and the penalty for any attempts to cheat the government to be a very high price including abolishment of all assets, and 25 years prison time without any possibility of parole.

No exceptions.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Thu 8 Sep, 2011 11:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
What was remarkable was the whiff of desperation conveyed by Obama, and the utter lack of interest by the Republicans. The speaker of the House looked bored. The Republicans neither booed nor applauded. No one thinks this grab bag, a mini son of the Stimulus Plan, is going to work. But Republicans must be relieved: Obama said nothing that would either win over independents or exert any pressure on them to pass it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-pay-it-now-pay-for-it-later/2011/03/29/gIQARLsFDK_blog.html?hpid=z3
georgeob1
 
  2  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 12:02 am
@hawkeye10,
I didn't detect the despersation so much as the arrogance of one who doesn't understand his own limitations or the emptiness of the ideas that animate him. He also appears to assume that his audience is seriously stupid and uncritical, and that by repeading himself incessantly ("pass this bill now") he can somehow lead or persuade. I have no way of knowing, but I get the impression of one who has spent far too much time in the presence of those who assumed he was some sort of demigod. He appears to believe that if he keeps saying the same tired old things louder everyone will wake up understand and get moving. A wiser or more experienced man would by now have begun to question his assumptions, and deal better with the worsening situation before him.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 12:14 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

When the $2 trillion is spent on infrastructure and education, the long-term benefits will pay for themselves. Creating jobs for millions across the country to work on our infrastructure, and to keep and hire teachers, will result in higher demand for all consumer goods and services - which in turn will pyramid into more jobs and tax revenues.
Why stop at $2 trillion? Why not borrow $10 trillion and make us all rich as a result of a fivefold increase in demand over what you propose. Perhaps we could get to the point at which everyone is employed at a high salary by the government and we could easily pay for it all with the taxes collected on their salaries. Hmmm.... no that wouldn't work. Could it be that you are full of ****?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those countries in Europe that have agreed to austerity programs will only make their economies worse off.
The facts aren't with you here. Germany reduced social benefits and unemployment insurance a few years ago and established serious restraints on the growth of industrial salaries to maintain the competitiveness of their industries, while carefully restraining government spending. Canada very significantly reduced its public debt starting about seven years ago -- both of these countries have sailed through the economic crisis with very few difficulties. It is the spendthrift nations that have pursued the policies you are advocating that have had the serious crises.

cicerone imposter wrote:

There should be checks and balances to ensure no money is wasted on fraud, and the penalty for any attempts to cheat the government to be a very high price including abolishment of all assets, and 25 years prison time without any possibility of parole.

No exceptions.


Most of the waste and fraudulent use of government funds comes from within the government itself. What would you do about that?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 12:57 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I didn't detect the despersation so much as the arrogance of one who doesn't understand his own limitations or the emptiness of the ideas that animate him. He also appears to assume that his audience is seriously stupid and uncritical, and that by repeading himself incessantly ("pass this bill now") he can somehow lead or persuade
I have noted on A2K all of those qualities in Obama before, so that he was displaying them tonight would fit.

Quote:
A wiser or more experienced man would by now have begun to question his assumptions, and deal better with the worsening situation before him
I think the problem is stubbornness, his arrogance again, his ego assuring him that he is the smartest guy in the room and all he needs to do to show us all this is to talk better. Obama is too young, too ignorant about life.....maybe his main problem is that he has not suffered enough failures and hardships (IE has not had enough pain in his life). This also explains his inability to connect on a personal level, his lack of empathy.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 01:11 am
@hawkeye10,
Dana Milbank
Opinion Writer
The irrelevancy of the Obama presidency

Quote:
It was, in a way, more insulting than Joe Wilson’s “you lie” eruption during a previous presidential address to Congress. The lawmakers weren’t particularly hostile toward the president – they just regarded the increasingly unpopular Obama as irrelevant. And the inclination not to take the 43-percent president seriously wasn’t entirely limited to the Republicans.

The nation is in an unemployment crisis, and Obama was finally, belatedly, unveiling his proposals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-irrelevancy-of-the-obama-presidency/2011/09/09/gIQA6WKvDK_story.html?hpid=z2

I find myself agreeing with Milbank often these days

Quote:
Obama rose to the occasion with a bold jobs proposal that delighted liberals but also had elements conservatives grudgingly endorsed. Yet long before the speech, both sides had concluded it didn’t much matter: Obama has become too weak to enact anything big enough to do much good.

“I thought it was a great speech,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) But the odds of Obama getting his plan through Congress “are probably as good as the Nationals winning the league this year.”

Presidential addresses to Congress are often dramatic moments. This one felt like a sideshow. Usually, the press gallery is standing room only; this time only 26 of 90 seats were claimed by the deadline. Usually, some members arrive in the chamber hours early to score a center-aisle seat; 90 minutes before Thursday’s speech, only one Democrat was so situated.


I am pretty sure that this is exactly what Krugman predicted would happen if the stimulus did not work, he said from the very start that Obama had one chance to get it right, that he could not squander the political will that existed at the time to juice the economy with yet more debt
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 01:21 am
@hawkeye10,
Mark Mardell
BBC



Quote:
US President Barack Obama has made a fiercely clever, even somewhat sly, speech.

He passionately scorned those playing at partisan politics while positioning himself in a very political way.

He stressed that his American Jobs Act was acting on proposals Republicans should like, while making a clear appeal to his own Democratic base and its values.

This was not of course a new President Obama, but it was a style of speech I have never heard him make before.

Fired up, yes, but using plain language. The call, if not the response, of a preacher.

The chorus line: "You should pass this jobs plan right away

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14848144

THe fundamental dishonesty of Obama has been noted before, that he must either be a lier or an idiot, and he since he assures us with every breath that he is not a idiot let's then take him at his word and brand him a lier....


Let us remember that Obama gave tonight what was essentially a campaign speech on jobs, and was promising to take it to the people all across America (AKA play politics with the issue or the foreseeable future)...while giving a lecture on the sin of playing politics with the jobs issue. Riiiiiight.
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 9 Sep, 2011 03:02 am
@hawkeye10,
I watched the speech live in horrified fascination.

If things are so simple it's a wonder how we got into this mess in the first place.

I would have felt insulted.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 2106
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 03:04:35