Obama's Jobs Speech

[Pete]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

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/2011/0...ogle_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?

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by rubberneck

President Obama gave a speech tonight?

He was campaigning. Again.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Pete

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.

Originally Posted by kgoerz

Our politics just suck no matter who you support.

Truer words were never spoken!

[rdret1]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...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?

[Pete]

What did he say?

PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ama_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?

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Pete

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.

[KLB]

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.

[rdret1]

http://politisite.com/2011/09/12/ame...011-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]

Two miles....

[tonyz]

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...67/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]

There is nothing new under the sun.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/..._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."

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

There is nothing new under the sun.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/..._proposal.html

Excellent article!

[mark46th]

Obama is still trying to get his "tax the rich" vendetta put into law...

[Richard]

Ailing? Step 1 - Stop taking the medication.

And so it goes...

Richard