View Full Version : Obama's Jobs Speech
Okay Gentlemen,
I just watched the Exalted One's speech on the American Jobs Act. I took copious notes! As expected, he NEVER said how he plans on doing anything! It was nothing more than a campaign speech. One point I was surprised with, it sounded about half like something a Republican might have said. It does appear like this will be another "pass it to see what is in it" kind of bill though. By my count, he said "You should pass this bill right away" or "You should pass this bill" 14 times.
As far as paying for it, again he made no specific references, instead saying that it would be paid for with future budget cuts elsewhere. Where will those cuts come from? Who knows. He wants to cut taxes (good); he wants to repair or modernize 35,000 schools (good); no more earmarks or boondoggles (good). He is against cutting regulations, especially those that pertain to collective bargaining (bad).
I snickered some at how he brought Pres. Lincoln and Pres. Kennedy into it, but that was just more campaign rhetoric. As the media was stating, it was a campaign speech and nothing more. Pelosi got all upset because the Repubs didn't want to offer a rebuttal and she thought that was disrespectful to the Pres. There wasn't anything to rebut! He didn't actually say what his plan was! Fortunately , I didn't expect anything more, so I wasn't disappointed!
I watched some of it.
Seemed to be going in circles so I went back to work. Somebody has to help pay for it all.
Cuts down the road are no cuts.
rubberneck
09-08-2011, 18:10
President Obama gave a speech tonight?
Red Flag 1
09-08-2011, 19:12
President Obama gave a speech tonight?
Hardly worth mentioning; but then, I've heard it all before.
RF 1
craigepo
09-08-2011, 19:17
The scary part is not how bad he is. The scary part is that this country elected him, and there's a good chance he'll get re-elected.
As my bumper sticker says: "Worst President Ever"
Ret10Echo
09-08-2011, 20:34
President Obama gave a speech tonight?
My disinterest kept me at the computer doing some work. So my wife calls me to the other room after it ends and asks if I would like to have a summary.
My response: "Before you say anything, let me guess... He said 1. Don't worry, it's under control" and 2. "If the Republicans would get out of the way and vote for my plan it will all be fixed."
She laughed....
I went back to work....
Packers 21, N.O. 17
Gee...I missed it, too...worked until 6:30 MDT, bought a new desk for my home office, just got it assembled...Obama made a speech because he's looking for a job?
ddoering
09-09-2011, 04:08
President?, What President? He's not my President.
Darn I missed another Speach that talked in circles and said nothing again:cool:
I was watching Chopped Champions (http://www.foodnetwork.com/chopped/index.html?vty=/chopped/) while studying.....
Stay safe.
I was watching 'Outland' - Sean Connery in 'High Noon' on Jupiter. I'll read the speech in today's paper.
Until the Legislative and Executive branches quit acting like spoiled competing fraternities and actually work together and do something, I'm referring to them as "Republi-can'ts, Demo-craps, and Tea-baggers...oh, my!"
Wake me when we get to Oz, Toto.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
.............Until the Legislative and Executive branches quit acting like spoiled competing fraternities and actually work together and do something,........... :munchin
Compromise and work together is what got us into this mess and is going to get us deeper.
Tons of new spending vs no new spending. OK lets compromise and just have lots more new spending. See. Everyone's happy as we go deeper in debt.
News just reported, this administration has the ability to created more debt, than all previous administrations (43), combined.
Sounds right, but I'd like to see the research, who's got the numbers?
Wake me when we get to Oz, Toto.
Richard :munchin
Toto told me that we arrived in Oz on January 20, 2009...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE
And, this regime has been doing something - that's the problem - below is an interesting report issued yesterday on the previous spending spree:
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/9-8-2011_ARRA_Jobs_Staff_Report_FINAL_2.pdf
Let's not forget the Obamacare monstrosity - and two Supreme Court Justices.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html
"In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan."
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/07/26/msnbcs-ratigan-claims-national-debt-mostly-run-prior-obama-republicans#ixzz1XSg3eyQB
"The budget submitted by Obama will add more to the debt than the outstanding debt of the previous 43 presidents combined."
Eric Cantor on Saturday, October 30th, 2010 in a letter to the editor of the Richmond Times-Dispatch
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2010/nov/07/eric-cantor/cantor-says-obama-budget-adds-more-debt-totaled-43/
No, these folks have done quite enough - thank you, Toto.
Ret10Echo
09-09-2011, 08:06
News just reported, this administration has the ability to created more debt, than all previous administrations (43), combined.
Sounds right, but I'd like to see the research, who's got the numbers?
Oddly enough WD, the blogosphere and leftist websites do not appear to be following debt generation any longer...
Tried this search term: administration debt created statistics
And just about all results were talking about the Bush Administration...straaaangely silent on the current drunken-party..
Oddly enough WD, the blogosphere and leftist websites do not appear to be following debt generation any longer...
Tried this search term: administration debt created statistics
And just about all results were talking about the Bush Administration...straaaangely silent on the current drunken-party..
Found this one using "debt statistics obama" .... http://nationaldebtbusters.blogspot.com/
The newest National Debt statistics as reported by www.treasurydirect.gov. Statistics are through April 19, 2011.
National Debt
Held by Public
$9,680,021,693,766.99
Intragovernmental Holdings
$4,640,446,861,324.69
Total debt (4/19/2011)
$14,320,468,555,091.68
Amount of Debt on Sept. 30, 2010
$13,561,623,030,891.79
Increase in Fiscal Year 2011
$758,845,524,199.89
Debt on Inauguration Day 2009
$10,626,877,048,913.08
Debt increase in 819 days of Obama Administration
$3,693,591,506,179.60<---------- It's still Bush's fault
($4,509,879,738.92/day)
Total Debt increase in George W. Bush Administration
($4,899,100,310,608.44 [$1,676,625,705.20/day - 2922 days])
Interest payments
March 2011
$24,460,282,823.69
Fiscal Year 2011
$215,581,249,409.94
Here's one a little more current .... http://www.theobamadebt.com/?m=201104
Obama's National Debt Impact
Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
As of Sep 7, 2011: $14,717,757,015,046
In 2.6 yrs Increased: $4,090,879,966,133
George Bush (8yrs): $4,899,100,310,609
.... and Berry still has 1.4 years left to go to really get us deeper in debt.
Think he could do it ????
My money is on .... YES.
:munchin
Badger52
09-09-2011, 08:52
Another day older and
...deeper in debt.
At this rate St. Peter will never come callin'
Nice stat-grab sir.
:cool:
Even though he may've been disliked...Sdiver and Badger post his data....:munchin
Stay safe.
...my money is on...
How much?....Never mind, we'll just put it all on the grand kids tab :(
More than enough data, numbers, tables and figures - and - suggestions in this report - but, perhaps, the one did not like it.
He sure buried it fast - IMO, worth a look.
Some may have not have had the opportunity to read this report, yet, so the link is provided below.
It sure is easier for O to repeat, "pass this bill now" over and over...
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
AND REFORM
The Moment of Truth
DECEMBER 2010
Excerpts:
The President and the leaders of both parties in both chambers of Congress asked us to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in this decade and beyond. We have worked to offer an aggressive, fair, balanced, and bipartisan proposal – a proposal as serious as the problems we face. None of us likes every element of our plan, and each of us had to tolerate provisions we previously or presently oppose in order to reach a principled compromise. We were willing to put our differences aside to forge a plan because our nation will certainly be lost without one.
We do not pretend to have all the answers. We offer our plan as the starting point for a serious national conversation in which every citizen has an interest and all should have a say. Our leaders have a responsibility to level with Americans about the choices we face, and to enlist the ingenuity and determination of the American people in rising to the challenge.
We believe neither party can fix this problem on its own, and both parties have a responsibility to do their part. The American people are a long way ahead of the political system in recognizing that now is the time to act. We believe that far from penalizing their leaders for making the tough choices, Americans will punish politicians for backing down – and well they should.
In the weeks and months to come, countless advocacy groups and special interests will try mightily through expensive, dramatic, and heart-wrenching media assaults to exempt themselves from shared sacrifice and common purpose. The national interest, not special interests, must prevail. We urge leaders and citizens with principled concerns about any of our recommendations to follow what we call the Becerra Rule: Don’t shoot down an idea without offering a better idea in its place.
After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America’s leaders to put up or shut up. The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back. We sign our names to this plan because we love our children, our grandchildren, and our country too much not to act while we still have the chance to secure a better future for all our fellow citizens.
The Looming Fiscal Crisis
Our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path. Spending is rising and revenues are falling short, requiring the government to borrow huge sums each year to make up the difference. We face staggering deficits. In 2010, federal spending was nearly 24 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the value of all goods and services produced in the economy. Only during World War II was federal spending a larger part of the economy. Tax revenues stood at 15 percent of GDP this year, the lowest level since 1950. The gap between spending and revenue – the budget deficit – was just under nine percent of GDP.
Since the last time our budget was balanced in 2001, the federal debt has increased dramatically, rising from 33 percent of GDP to 62 percent of GDP in 2010. The escalation was driven in large part by two wars and a slew of fiscally irresponsible policies, along with a deep economic downturn. We have arrived at the moment of truth, and neither political party is without blame.
Economic recovery will improve the deficit situation in the short run because revenues will rise as people go back to work, and money spent on the social safety net will decline as fewer people are forced to rely on it. But even after the economy recovers, federal spending is projected to increase faster than revenues, so the government will have to continue borrowing money to spend. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects if we continue on our current course, deficits will remain high throughout the rest of this decade and beyond, and debt will spiral ever higher, reaching 90 percent of GDP in 2020.
Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse. By 2025 revenue will be able to finance only interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Every other federal government activity – from national defense and homeland security to transportation and energy – will have to be paid for with borrowed money. Debt held by the public will outstrip the entire American economy, growing to as much as 185 percent of GDP by 2035. Interest on the debt could rise to nearly $1 trillion by 2020. These mandatory payments – which buy absolutely no goods or services – will squeeze out funding for all other priorities.
Federal debt this high is unsustainable. It will drive up interest rates for all borrowers – businesses and individuals – and curtail economic growth by crowding out private investment. By making it more expensive for entrepreneurs and businesses to raise capital, innovate, and create jobs, rising debt could reduce per-capita GDP, each American’s share of the nation’s economy, by as much as 15 percent by 2035.
Rising debt will also hamstring the government, depriving it of the resources needed to respond to future crises and invest in other priorities. Deficit spending is often used to respond to short-term financial “emergency” needs such as wars or recessions. If our national debt grows higher, the federal government may even have difficulty borrowing funds at an affordable interest rate, preventing it from effectively responding.
Large debt will put America at risk by exposing it to foreign creditors. They currently own more than half our public debt, and the interest we pay them reduces our own standard of living. The single largest foreign holder of our debt is China, a nation that may not share our country’s aspirations and strategic interests. In a worst-case scenario, investors could lose confidence that our nation is able or willing to repay its loans – possibly triggering a debt crisis that would force the government to implement the most stringent of austerity measures.
Predicting the precise level of public debt that would trigger such a crisis is difficult, but a key factor may be whether the debt has been stabilized as a share of the economy or if it continues to rise. Investors, reluctant to risk throwing good money after bad, are sure to be far more concerned about rising debt than stable debt. In a recent briefing on the risk of a fiscal crisis, CBO explained that while “there is no identifiable tipping point of debt relative to GDP indicating that a crisis is likely or imminent,” the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is “climbing into unfamiliar territory” and “the higher the debt, the greater the risk of such a crisis.”1
If we do not act soon to reassure the markets, the risk of a crisis will increase, and the options available to avert or remedy the crisis will both narrow and become more stringent. If we wait ten years, CBO projects our economy could shrink by as much as 2 percent, and spending cuts and tax increases needed to plug the hole could nearly double what is needed today.
Continued inaction is not a viable option, and not an acceptable course for a responsible government.
Badger52
09-09-2011, 11:38
Even though he may've been disliked...Sdiver and Badger post his data....:munchin
Stay safe.Zu Befehl!
1993–1997
Begin Debt/GDP: 66.1%
End Debt/GDP: 65.4%
Increase ($B): 1,018
Change: -0.7%
1997-2001
Begin Debt/GDP: 65.4%
End Debt/GDP: 56.4%
Increase ($B): 401
Change: -9.0%
Those are good numbers on the surface when one doesn't question whether or not the larger revenue on the revenue vs. spending graphs should even be necessary in the first place. One thing that is without dispute, he completely buffalo'd several sessions of Congress who - in the end - didn't have the huevos to stand against raising the debt limit. (Nothing new there, it's a bi-partisan affliction.)
Thanks for the opportunity!
:)
The source chart was most interesting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)
Zu Befehl!.......
Wiki as a source?
Badger52
09-09-2011, 13:19
Wiki as a source?Actually that table is sourced from CBO data available from Treasury which is buried in some rather large reports - I have not downloaded and personally vetted each line-item in that table.
Unfortunately the reporting tool at Treasury which so quickly spits out the figures available for current incumbent states that it doesn't go back further than 1997. I did cruise the report archives for the 90's (and the Clinton years saw the CBO responding to alot of report requirements), but did not find - in the time I allotted for this particular venture - a separate treasury.gov source for the data back then. I'm sure it's somewhere, the G saves everything.
Within the context of Guy's request - a contrast with Clinton - this answers the mail.
greenberetTFS
09-09-2011, 13:41
Gee...Obama made a speech because he's looking for a job?
I concur.......:rolleyes:
Big Teddy :munchin
Within the context of Guy's request - a contrast with Clinton - this answers the mail.
Comparing Obama economics to Clinton economics (http://keithhennessey.com/2010/08/04/clinton-v-obama/)
Stay safe.
Badger52
09-09-2011, 14:36
Comparing Obama economics to Clinton economics (http://keithhennessey.com/2010/08/04/clinton-v-obama/)
Stay safe.Nicely done blog, bookmarked. (Got a 404-error trying for his data-source out of curiosity, but the bar comparisons dovetail with some other sources seen out there.) Time to go catch smallies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTi8AL59Bek
How much?....
I can tell you it won't be much.
I've been unemployed since last November.
:munchin
The repubs would block a bill halting the torturing of puppies. If it meant keeping him a one termer. Our politics just suck no matter who you support.
The repubs would block a bill halting the torturing of puppies. If it meant keeping him a one termer. Our politics just suck no matter who you support.
The Repubs seem to have written in the means to do this
Senate Approves $500 Billion Increase in Borrowing Authority
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/08/senate-approves-500-billion-increase-in-borrowing-authority/?mod=google_news_blog
"................The increase stems from a deal between Congress and the White House, finalized last month, that spells out how the borrowing limit would be increased by $500 billion. Under the process, lawmakers in both the House and Senate must vote on a resolution of disapproval against the increase in the borrowing limit. President Barack Obama would then have to veto the resolution of disapproval, and Congress would then vote to try and override that veto......................."
Does anyone care what "POLITICIANS" are doing? The Tea Party was slammed for trying to stop crap like this. But hey, what's $500 Billion?
President Obama gave a speech tonight?
He was campaigning. Again.
But hey, what's $500 Billion?
When you've you stolen as much as they have, $500 Billion is just a drop in the bucket.
Our politics just suck no matter who you support.
Truer words were never spoken!
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/09/pass-what-bill-mr-obama/
I like the way this guy puts it and agree with him 100%. I saw a story on WRAL where Zero is coming to the Triangle to shore up some support for his jobs bill. I still haven't heard what the bill includes yet, how is anyone (other than Nancy Pelosi) going to support it?
What did he say?
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/pbs_alters_transcript_to_hide_obama_gaffe.html
".................At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.
Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.
Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned................."
PBS did what?
Did they just publish what they were given or should they have published what he said?
What did he say?
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe.
You should see what they've done with his Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard transcripts, by now...oh, that's right, we can't. ;)
There's hope yet. No president has ever been re-elected with unemployment higher than 7.2%, and all the college kids who helped elect him still don't have jobs. Obama isn't "cool" anymore. I nearly choked when he paraphrased part of JFK's inaugural speech - as if it was his own.
http://politisite.com/2011/09/12/american-jobs-act-2011-full-text/
For those of you waiting with baited breath to read the full text of the "American Jobs Act 2011"; here it is. It is 155 pages of a lot of money spent for little gain IMO. Some of the requirements for the renovations of schools are that they include a lot of "green" technology and that no athletic or religious oriented facility, including divinity departments, are part of the renovation using the grant money.
Highway and railroad infrastucture , Amtrak specifically, get a huge chunk of change. Next Generation Air Traffic Control figures prominently as well as airport renovations. The jobs training provisions will be a wash out IMO as they apply to a limited number of fields.
I went through and wrote all kinds of notes with costs and benefits, but it would be easier on all concerned if you read it and made your own interpretations. I think he actually means well with this bill, but misses the mark by a mile.
Snaquebite
09-12-2011, 18:39
Two miles....
The short sellers (no, not Robert Reishhhhhh) gotta love zero’s speeches.
Anyway, now that it's out - maybe they better hurry up and pass the Bill so Pelosi doesn't actually have to read it - to find out what’s in it.
September 9, 2011
A Stale Speech
by Victor Davis Hanson
NRO’s The Corner
Obama must be in a time warp — he thinks the content of his speech is new, or can be made new by more soaring cadences. It’s almost as if he is oblivious to the fact that, before calling for nearly half a trillion dollars in government borrowing to jumpstart temporary job creation tonight, he already oversaw a failed $800 million stimulus, “shovel-ready” jobs that were later admitted to be not so shovel-ready, “millions of green jobs” talk leading to sweetheart loans to now-bankrupt crony companies, nearly $5 trillion in new borrowing, and massive new financial and environmental regulations. Been there, done that.
And is the president unable to give a speech without trotting out the tired canard of “millionaires and billionaires” and the omnipresent Warren Buffett and his proverbial secretary for the nth time — especially given that Buffett’s companies have had tax troubles with the IRS and his fortune will pass without inheritance taxes?
Can he refrain from equating legitimate worry over new hyper-regulation with a desire to expose kids to mercury or be shortchanged by the health-care industry?
Does he really believe that the majority of Americans who oppose his statism really wish to “just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own”?
Why all that straw-man caricaturing ad nauseam, when after three years it is well beyond old and stale and, what’s more, Obama has a desperate need now for bipartisan support? Is Obama just politically dense, or he is so inured to the Chicago us/them confrontational mentality that he knows no politics other than polarization, even when appealing for help?
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson091111.html
©2011 Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/29184367/detail.html
DENVER -- The man who calls himself the "Troubleshooter" is in financial trouble himself.
Tom Martino, who used to work at KDVR Fox 31, has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Denver, according to the Denver Business Journal.
Martino said in the court filing that the debts are primarily related to his business. He blamed bad commercial real estate debt, the recession and two failed banks for his financial woes.
"It is commercial real estate debt, every bit of it. I have no consumer debt," he told the Denver Business Journal.
The filing shows Martino has assets of about $1.37 million and owes $78.6 million.
Martino owns the Troubleshooter Network, a referral list that companies pay Martino to get into.
Under Chapter 7 bankruptcy, assets are sold and creditors are repaid a small fraction of what they’re owed.
Last year, Martino had an income of $2.15 million from three sources -- the Troubleshooter Network, Tom Martino Consulting LLC, and Denver TV station KDVR.
Martino had an hour-long show on Fox 31 called "Martino TV" and a three-hour talk-radio show on 630-KHOW. The TV show has since been canceled.
GratefulCitizen
09-14-2011, 19:10
There is nothing new under the sun.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/ben_franklin_skewers_obamas_jobs_proposal.html
Ben Franklin's essay, "On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor," directly responds to President Obama's jobs proposals. And indeed, it nearly encapsulates the entire message we conservatives have for our president on the matter of taxing the wealthy and addressing poverty.
Suffice it to say, Benjamin Franklin would have been among the vilified rich today. He was a private landowner who wanted the British government to leave him to his own successful devices. But his critics in the king's press negatively branded him a wealthy "Farmer" (which could be considered equivalent to the term "corporate fat cat" by 18th-century standards) and was called upon to pay his "fair share," via depressed pricing in a government-controlled market, to see that the beleaguered "Manufacturers" could be uplifted.
And as our modern-day wealthy Americans have been criticized for the lavish spending on corporate jets and the like, so too was Franklin. In response to the charges vilifying the usage of his own personal property and money, Franklin retorts:
Are we Farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of honest labour? And why? One of the late scribblers against us gives a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and proclaims to all the world that we had the insolence to eat beef and pudding! Has he never read that precept in the good book, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; or does he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen?
Indeed, why does Mr. Obama seek to extract more wealth from only the "wealthy"? Are not other economic classes to share in the burden, despite his incessant calls that all Americans equally counteract our economic crisis by paying our "fair share"? And is the wealthy American less entitled to reap the fruits of his labor than the middle class or the poor? Well, as Mr. Franklin would likely be disheartened to hear, this has become decidedly so given our modern, heavily progressive income tax. But that does not make it any more right in the eyes of reasonable men.
And what would Obama prefer? Would he rather that wealthy Americans not spend their money as lavishly as they earn it? Franklin asks:
The Farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray, would you have them hoard the money they get? Their fine cloaths and furniture, do they make them themselves, or for one another, and so keep the money among them? Or do they employ these your darling Manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation?
Ah, this brings us to the quick of Obama's condemnation of the wealthy. Jobs. Rich people are not creating jobs right now, he says. But with increased profits comes the increasing seizure of personal property and money, so where is the incentive? Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts says that Obama's "tax the wealthy" rhetoric does nothing to incentivize business to invest or spur new hiring. In other words, as Franklin explained to his government:
Having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton!
He goes on:
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. Possibly. But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
An interesting question. The English government artificially depressing the price of crops and forcing wealthy landowners to sell at that lower price is not unlike our government simply taking more from the rich through tax legislation. How can wealthy employers afford the higher wages and benefit packages set by unions and federal regulation when our government will not allow business owners a right to keep, when markets dictate that they might have it, more of their money for having done so?
And in response to the government dictating when a businessman has "made enough money," Franklin laments:
But, it seems, we Farmers must take much less so the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates, then, as a tax for the maintenance of the poor.
There can be no question of this today. Our president suggests that our modern "Farmers" keep less so that the poor may take more, undisguised as a "tax for the maintenance of the poor." The public aim of his proposed tax hike is "to give hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged young people hope and dignity while giving their low-income parents 'ladders out of poverty.'"
But is administratively shifting wealth from rich to poor the best means to uplift the poor from their lives of poverty? Benjamin Franklin gives us his unabashed opinion on the matter:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
Barack Obama has formed his entire platform of social justice on the very opposite principle. So would Benjamin Franklin be surprised that Obama's social and economic policy of expanding entitlements for mere existence has failed miserably, yielding an unprecedentedly high level of poverty? I would wager not. What he might tell Mr. Obama is precisely what he told the king of England over two centuries ago:
In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.
Benjamin Franklin was an industrious and brilliant liberal of his time, a man not only responsible for creating personal wealth, but in part responsible for creating the wealthiest nation on Earth. Yet we have seen Americans disavow his longstanding wisdom to embrace an ideology wholly contrary to our founders', peddled by a modern-day liberal academic who has created no true wealth, but only sought to redistribute it -- all with clearly detrimental results.
Franklin's acumen for understanding human nature transcends time, and we would do well to heed it. More stimulus is not what is needed, nor will it be beneficial to further tax the wealthy. We must reform our governmental structure of broadly encompassing economic entitlements and regulation. Only then will "industry ... increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by insuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."
There is nothing new under the sun.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/ben_franklin_skewers_obamas_jobs_proposal.html
Excellent article!
mark46th
09-15-2011, 09:00
Obama is still trying to get his "tax the rich" vendetta put into law...
Ailing? Step 1 - Stop taking the medication. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
The Repubs seem to have written in the means to do this
Senate Approves $500 Billion Increase in Borrowing Authority
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/08/senate-approves-500-billion-increase-in-borrowing-authority/?mod=google_news_blog
"................The increase stems from a deal between Congress and the White House, finalized last month, that spells out how the borrowing limit would be increased by $500 billion. Under the process, lawmakers in both the House and Senate must vote on a resolution of disapproval against the increase in the borrowing limit. President Barack Obama would then have to veto the resolution of disapproval, and Congress would then vote to try and override that veto......................."
Does anyone care what "POLITICIANS" are doing? The Tea Party was slammed for trying to stop crap like this. But hey, what's $500 Billion?
Do's anyone have a pie chart type breakdown of where all this money has gone. Has the government put something like this out.
Do's anyone have a pie chart type breakdown of where all this money has gone. Has the government put something like this out.
US Federal Budget Pie Chart for FY12
https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?cht=p3&chs=600x200&chf=bg,s,e8e8ff&chd=t:22,23,3,25,12,2,3,1,4,6&chl=Pensions%2022%|Health%20Care%2023%|Education%2 03%|Defense%2025%|Welfare%2012%|Protection%202%|Tr ansportation%203%|General%20Government%201%|Other% 20Spending%204%|Interest%206%&chtt=Federal%20Spending%20for%20United%20States%20-%20FY%202012
Link (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php)
Stay safe.
alright4u
09-16-2011, 20:08
http://politisite.com/2011/09/12/american-jobs-act-2011-full-text/
For those of you waiting with baited breath to read the full text of the "American Jobs Act 2011"; here it is. It is 155 pages of a lot of money spent for little gain IMO. Some of the requirements for the renovations of schools are that they include a lot of "green" technology and that no athletic or religious oriented facility, including divinity departments, are part of the renovation using the grant money.
Highway and railroad infrastucture , Amtrak specifically, get a huge chunk of change. Next Generation Air Traffic Control figures prominently as well as airport renovations. The jobs training provisions will be a wash out IMO as they apply to a limited number of fields.
I went through and wrote all kinds of notes with costs and benefits, but it would be easier on all concerned if you read it and made your own interpretations. I think he actually means well with this bill, but misses the mark by a mile.
Maybe Michael Moore and Al Gore are starting a new solar corp. like the one that just went belly up? Really, it is sad with all those shovel ready jobs I am still waiting on. I even own a shovel. Perhaps the shovels were not constructed with green tech?
TrapLine
09-17-2011, 08:37
Maybe the POTUS should appoint my wife to be the Jobs Czar, she has no problem finding "shovel ready" projects. :eek::boohoo
‘Pass This Jobs Bill!’
Mark Steyn
National Review Online
September 17, 2011 7:00 A.M.
Steyn does manage to hit some of the highlights...
Excerpts:
There is no bill, it won’t “create” any jobs, and it will be paid for with money we don’t have.
“I love you!” squeals the Obammybopper in North Carolina. “I love you, too,” says Obama. “But . . . ”
But: You gotta take this half-trillion-dollar bill, and the next one, and the one after that. Like Al Gore says in Love Story, love means never having to say you’re sorry.
The president has taken to the campaign trail to promote his “American Jobs Act.”
That’s a good name for it: an act. “Pass this bill now!” he declared 24 times at a stop in Raleigh, N.C., and another 18 in Columbus, Ohio, and the act is sufficiently effective that, three years into the Vapidity of Hope, the president can still find crowds of true believers willing to chant along with him: “Pass this bill now!”
Not all supporters are content merely to singalong with the prompter-in-chief. In North Carolina, a still-devoted hopeychanger cried out, “I love you!”
Oh, no, here it comes: conditional love. “But, if you love me, you’ve got to help me pass this bill!” You’d be surprised how effective this line is: I tried it on Darlene in the back of my Ford Edsel when I was 17 and we didn’t get home till two in the morning.
Pass this bill now, or I’ll say “Pass this bill now!” another two dozen times! With this latest inspiration, Obama has taken the post-modern phase of democratic politics to a whole new level. “Pass this jobs bill”? Simply as a matter of humdrum reality, there is no bill, it won’t “create” any jobs, and it will be paid for with money we don’t have.
But the smartest president in history has calculated that, if he says the same four monosyllables over and over, a nonexistent bill to create nonexistent jobs with nonexistent money will be yet another legislative triumph in the grand tradition of his first stimulus (the original Dumb and Dumber to the sequel’s Stimulus and Stimulusser).
The estimated cost of the non-bill is just shy of half a trillion dollars. Gosh, it seems like only yesterday that Washington was in the grip of a white-knuckle, clenched-teeth showdown over whether a debt-ceiling deal could be reached before the allegedly looming deadline. When the deal was triumphantly unveiled at the eleventh hour, it was revealed that our sober, prudent, fiscally responsible masters had gotten control of the runaway spending and had carved (according to the most optimistic analysis) a whole $7 billion dollars of savings out of the 2012 budget. The president then airily breezes into Congress and in 20 minutes adds another $447 billion to the tab. That’s what meaningful course-correction in Washington boils down to: Seven billion steps forward, 447 billion steps back.
This $447 billion does not exist, and even foreigners don’t want to lend it to us. A majority of it will be “electronically created” by the Federal Reserve buying U.S. Treasury debt. Don’t worry, it’s not like “printing money”: We leave that to primitive basket cases like Zimbabwe.
This is more like one of those Nigerian e-mail schemes, in which a prominent public official promises you a large sum of money in return for your bank-account details. In the case of Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner, one prominent public official is promising to wire a large sum of money into the account of another prominent public official, which is a wrinkle even the Nigerians might have difficulty selling.
But not to worry. On Thursday night, the president told a Democratic fundraiser in Washington that the Pass My Jobs Bill bill would create 1.9 million new jobs. What kind of jobs are created by this kind of magical thinking? Well, they’re “green jobs” — and, if we know anything about “green jobs,” it’s that they take a lot of green. German taxpayers subsidize “green jobs” in their wind-power industry to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars per worker per year: $250,000 per “green job” would pay for a lot of real jobs, even in the European Union. Last year, it was revealed that the Spanish government paid $800,000 for every “green job” on a solar-panel assembly line. I had assumed carelessly that this must be a world record in terms of taxpayer subsidy per fraudulent “green job.” But it turns out those cheapskate Spaniards with their lousy nickel-and-dime “green jobs” subsidy just weren’t thinking big. The Obama administration’s $38.6 billion “clean technology” program was supposed to “create or save” 65,000 jobs. Half the money has been spent — $17.2 billion — and we have 3,545 jobs to show for it. That works out to an impressive $4,851,904.09 per “green job.” A world record! Take that, you loser Spaniards! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
So, based on previous form, Obama’s prediction of 1.9 million new jobs will result in the creation of 92,000 new jobs, mostly in the Federal Department of Green Jobs Grant Applications.
Just to put it in perspective, the breezy $447 billion price tag for the Pass My Jobs Bill jobs bill is about 20 times higher than the most recent Greek government deficit currently threatening the stability of the entire eurozone. Indeed Greece’s projected 2011 deficit — $24 billion at last count — is little more than half of just one of Obama’s boutique, niche “green jobs” programs. As Churchill almost said, never in the field of human con tricks has so much been owed by so many to so little effect.
Fortunately, there is no “American Jobs Act.” Indeed, the other day, tired of waiting for Obama to turn his telepromptered pseudo-bill into a typewritten actual bill, the Texas congressman Louie Gohmert waggishly introduced an “American Jobs Act” all of his own. But back on the campaign trail the chanting goes on, last week’s election results in Nevada and New York notwithstanding.
America has the lowest employment since the early Eighties, the lowest property ownership since the mid-Sixties, the highest deficit-to-GDP ratio since the Second World War, the worst long-term unemployment since the Great Depression, the highest government-dependency rate of all time, and the biggest debt mountain in the history of the planet. And the president has just announced to the world that he’s checked the more-of-the-above box. The Pass My Jobs Bill jobs bill proclaims that this is all he knows and all he wants to know.
Maybe if you’re a “public service” worker or a tenured professor at Berkeley or a green-jobs racketeer or a New York Times columnist married to an heiress, you can afford Obama. But, if you’re not, look at your home, look at your savings, and figure out what’ll be left after another four years of “stimulus.”
Full article at link below:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277492/pass-jobs-bill-mark-steyn?page=1
ya gotta admit...if this dudes not "the pied piper" with his minions following him...I don't know who is...
good gawd...and they believe this shit??? :((
Much like some small rodents, Obama supporters and many of the green jobs supporters at this time appear to be driven by certain mythical biological urges…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYP1Tjgt1Ao
alright4u
09-18-2011, 16:53
I looked over his economic advisors real world experience. Yes, the advanced econ degree czar, plus his money printer pal in the Fed. Neither have real world experience.
Macro economics, aka national income accounting, at this level, must include GDP, GNP, and GNI at a specific point in time in order to be valid. Without this being done, no course of action can even be recommended.
On the other hand, someone sounds like that dose of reality has finally kicked in.
EPA chief on verge of quitting after Obama rejected pollution proposal
The ozone almost did her in.
Lisa Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, was on the verge of quitting two weeks ago after President Obama rejected her centerpiece proposal for strict new air-pollution regulations, The Post has learned.
Jackson told intimates she had been convinced Obama would back her up despite aggressive lobbying from Capitol Hill Republicans and business interests.
But on Sept. 1, she learned her support in the West Wing had crumbled during two meetings -- one with Chief of Staff Bill Daley and another with the president.
In the face of a weak economy, bad poll numbers and bleak employment figures, Obama made it clear that “we just don’t need this fight right now,” according to an administration source.
A day later, the administration announced it was abandoning the proposal for the tougher emissions rules, which would have cut the amount of ozone that can be spewed into the air.
The White House said that it would revisit the issue in 2013, but that, for now, the changes to the Clean Air Act would have burdened businesses and local governments with costs to contain and monitor air pollution.
“She was very upset,” one administration official told The Post of Jackson’s reaction. “She didn’t know what she was going to do.”
Sources said Jackson spent two days considering whether to quit.
“Lisa was blindsided,” said senior Sierra Club official Jeff Tittel, a longtime confidant of Jackson. Obama “did it and then told her about it. She was pretty pissed off. She felt like she got hit with a hot poker between the eyes.”
But by the time she traveled with Obama to view hurricane damage on Sept. 4, Jackson had cooled and was telling intimates she was determined to stay.
Tittel said Jackson, 49, “has a lot of other stuff out there that she wants to get done that wouldn’t get done if she left. She’s not the kind of person who goes home and takes her marbles. She’s the kind who would stay and fight even if she is frustrated.”
The White House declined to comment.
Jackson spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said, “This administration has a tremendous record on the environment and a lot more work left to do.
“Administrator Jackson said she’s not going anywhere, and she isn’t.”
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/epa_air_rage_at_bam_HB4xP0FSqv2aCNQvzqaFCN
Right Now appears to mean Maybe Next Month
Obama's urgent jobs plan: Right now, 'right now' means sometime next month maybe
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-right-now-dick-durbin.html
"CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?
DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...
CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?
DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month..................."
Gotta' let the politicians stick a little pork here and there. Maybe $500,000,000 for a "Green Company" here or there.
Right Now appears to mean Maybe Next Month
Obama's urgent jobs plan: Right now, 'right now' means sometime next month maybe
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/09/obama-jobs-speech-right-now-dick-durbin.html
"CROWLEY: When is the bill going to get on the floor?
DURBIN: The bill is on the calendar. Majority leader Reid moved it to the calendar. It is ready and poised. There are a couple other items we may get into this week not on the bill and some related issues that may create jobs. But we're going to move forward on the president's bill. There will be a healthy debate. I hope the Republicans will come to...
CROWLEY: After the recess, so next month? Or when will it actually begin to act on?
DURBIN: I think that's more realistic it would be next month..................."
Gotta' let the politicians stick a little pork here and there. Maybe $500,000,000 for a "Green Company" here or there.
LOL...hurry, hurrry...oh wait, not so fast....I gotta go on vacation.....again...:eek:
[COLOR="Lime"] Gotta' let the politicians stick a little pork here and there. Maybe $500,000,000 for a "Green Company" here or there.
It is already written in the bill, toward the end. The bill states that any renovations or improvements schools make have to be in "green" technology.
greenberetTFS
09-19-2011, 21:22
I looked over his economic advisors real world experience. Yes, the advanced econ degree czar, plus his money printer pal in the Fed. Neither have real world experience.
Macro economics, aka national income accounting, at this level, must include GDP, GNP, and GNI at a specific point in time in order to be valid. Without this being done, no course of action can even be recommended.
alright4u,
You hit it right on the head,concur completely with you.....;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
roosevelt83
10-07-2011, 14:43
He's simply campaigning yet some people are too dumb to realize it. It's another speech that runs around in circles, gives zero detail on what's going to be done, and rips the Republicans for not approving the crap that comes from his office.
Until both parties start acting like grown ups the government will still be ran at half capacity.
Utah Bob
10-07-2011, 15:06
Allow me to condense it....
Bullshit.
cetheridge
10-07-2011, 22:20
Allow me to condense it....
Bullshit.
Or....."HorseShit" coming directly from the "Horse's Ass" (AKA BO)!