Official Presidenital Speech Thread

[ConHog]

Is everyone watching?

[ConHog]

More " we must spend this money to create new jobs"

this guy is a broken record.

[ConHog]

Okay a $4K tax credit to any business that hires someone who has been out of work for 6 months or more is a good thing.

[ConHog]

LOL "Warren Buffet has asked us to raise his taxes"

[ConHog]

More telling banks how they should handle mortgages?

[ConHog]

Side Note - Hillary Clinton looks like shit.

[MtnBiker]

Obama - "Well the first 850 billion in government spending didn't do anything to create jobs, but another next 450 billion will. And if you don't support this bill you are unpatriotic."

[MtnBiker]

By the way, after Obama is elected out of office he should seek a job in selling retread tires.

[ConHog]

Obama - "Well the first 850 billion in government spending didn't do anything to create jobs, but another next 450 billion will. And if you don't support this bill you are unpatriotic."

Bout sums it up.

[Noir]

Obama - "Well the first 850 billion in government spending didn't do anything to create jobs, but another next 450 billion will. And if you don't support this bill you are unpatriotic."

Is that a direct quote?

[ConHog]

Is that a direct quote?

No, of course not sheesh.

[Noir]

No, of course not sheesh.

I know, I was taking the piss.

I once got all manor of things said when I put single quote marks (ie. 'like this') about Sarah Palin...

[Gaffer]

Not bothering to watch him. It's a rerun of his last half dozen speeches. I never cared for reruns.

Let me know if he has all the doors locked and starts calling names and having people drug out...

[ConHog]

Not bothering to watch him. It's a rerun of his last half dozen speeches. I never cared for reruns.

Let me know if he has all the doors locked and starts calling names and having people drug out...

It's already over. I actually liked SOME of what he said, I just don't know why he feels like the government spending MORE money is going to do anything good.

[Kathianne]

It's already over. I actually liked SOME of what he said, I just don't know why he feels like the government spending MORE money is going to do anything good.

Simple. Government:people. Win/win. He is the savior of the people. Unless there is something wrong with the analogy.

[ConHog]

Simple. Government:people. Win/win. He is the savior of the people. Unless there is something wrong with the analogy.

I'm not sure about him, at times I think he really believes that what he's doing is helping and at times I think he just enjoys the idea of being President, but doesn't actually want to do the job. I can live with former, but not the latter.

[Kathianne]

I'm not sure about him, at times I think he really believes that what he's doing is helping and at times I think he just enjoys the idea of being President, but doesn't actually want to do the job. I can live with former, but not the latter.

Why?

[Gaffer]

I'm not sure about him, at times I think he really believes that what he's doing is helping and at times I think he just enjoys the idea of being President, but doesn't actually want to do the job. I can live with former, but not the latter.

I think it's a little of both. He believes what he's doing is helping because he's been told so. And he doesn't like the job interfering with his golf games.

[ConHog]

Why?

why what?

[Kathianne]

why what?Why one and not the other? Explain your answer is all I was asking.

[ConHog]

Why one and not the other? Explain your answer is all I was asking.

Oh, I merely meant that I am okay with him having the job and doing what he thinks is best but I am not okay with him just being in the office simply because he wants to be the big man. Doesn't mean I agree with him in either case, but I can respect him for having his ideas even if I disagree with him, I would have no respect for him if I knew he only pretends to care about people and actually only wanted the job to feed his own ego.

[Kathianne]

Oh, I merely meant that I am okay with him having the job and doing what he thinks is best but I am not okay with him just being in the office simply because he wants to be the big man. Doesn't mean I agree with him in either case, but I can respect him for having his ideas even if I disagree with him, I would have no respect for him if I knew he only pretends to care about people and actually only wanted the job to feed his own ego.

Now I'm really confused. Obama? Someone else? The homeless?

[ConHog]

Now I'm really confused. Obama? Someone else? The homeless?

This thread is about Obama, not the homeless.

[Gaffer]

Oh, I merely meant that I am okay with him having the job and doing what he thinks is best but I am not okay with him just being in the office simply because he wants to be the big man. Doesn't mean I agree with him in either case, but I can respect him for having his ideas even if I disagree with him, I would have no respect for him if I knew he only pretends to care about people and actually only wanted the job to feed his own ego.

The bold part is what I think of him.

Someone that had the best interests of the country at heart would not have selected joe biden as his VP.

[OCA]

I don't think John Boehner has been in the tanning booth enough, that malaka looks like shit, about the same as his politics.

Obama hit a home run tonight, unless you don't like job creation, tax credits and deregulation or you are a RINO and like the status quo.

[jimnyc]

I don't think John Boehner has been in the tanning booth enough, that malaka looks like shit, about the same as his politics.

Obama hit a home run tonight, unless you don't like job creation, tax credits and deregulation or you are a RINO and like the status quo.

It's regurgitated dog shit from his job creation dreams from the past few years. It's sunk us worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since the first time... Specifically, during this "home run" tonight, what did you hear differently from him to expect different results?

[ConHog]

It's regurgitated dog shit from his job creation dreams from the past few years. It's sunk us worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since the first time... Specifically, during this "home run" tonight, what did you hear differently from him to expect different results?

You do have to admit that the $4K tax credit for each new hire who has been looking for a job for at least 6 months would probably produce positive results.

[OCA]

It's regurgitated dog shit from his job creation dreams from the past few years. It's sunk us worse, and worse, and worse, and worse since the first time... Specifically, during this "home run" tonight, what did you hear differently from him to expect different results?

Tax credits, loosening up of patent laws, plans to stop corps from moving jobs overseas and closing loopholes and changing tax laws that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side of the aisle? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?

[KarlMarx]

I skipped watching the President. I'll bet that no matter what he proposes, it's the wrong thing.

Obama is so inept, he could find a way to lose at Solitaire.

[OCA]

I skipped watching the President. I'll bet that no matter what he proposes, it's the wrong thing.

Obama is so inept, he could find a way to lose at Solitaire.

Don't be surprised when he gets 4 more years. All one has to do is look at the Repub field to see that its a very realistic chance.

[ConHog]

Tax credits, loosening up of patent laws, plans to stop corps from moving jobs overseas and closing loopholes and changing tax laws that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side of the aisle? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?


Stop being ignorant. Obama himself CLEARLY said that many of the ideas he put out there tonight in fact came from Republicans. Meaning that your Messiah may have actually grown up and realized that in order to actually help anyone he's going to have to stop being a partisan dick who thinks he's the only person who knows shit.

Maybe you should take note.

[OCA]

Stop being ignorant. Obama himself CLEARLY said that many of the ideas he put out there tonight in fact came from Republicans. Meaning that your Messiah may have actually grown up and realized that in order to actually help anyone he's going to have to stop being a partisan dick who thinks he's the only person who knows shit.

Maybe you should take note.

My messiah?...............i've won already.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?

[jimnyc]

You do have to admit that the $4K tax credit for each new hire who has been looking for a job for at least 6 months would probably produce positive results.

In theory I agree. But I'm not a business owner. I would imagine the economy would need to pick up a bit before companies would hire that many where it would make a difference. But hell, I suppose anything that would help create a few jobs right now would be an upgrade. How many jobs were created last month? Zero?


Tax credits, loosening up of patent laws, plans to stop corps from moving jobs overseas and closing loopholes and changing tax laws that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side of the aisle? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?

The Dems have been making claims like that forever and they ain't done jack shit 'cept lose jobs and increase debt. But I'll assume your dream of an Obama hail Mary will happen...

Have you not read proposals from the GOP and their leaders from the past year? I would imagine if you did that you wouldn't be asking that question right now. Wouldn't it make more sense to read their proposals from over the past year rather than appear ignorant? :poke:

[ConHog]

In theory I agree. But I'm not a business owner. I would imagine the economy would need to pick up a bit before companies would hire that many where it would make a difference. But hell, I suppose anything that would help create a few jobs right now would be an upgrade. How many jobs were created last month? Zero?



The Dems have been making claims like that forever and they ain't done jack shit 'cept lose jobs and increase debt. But I'll assume your dream of an Obama hail Mary will happen...

Have you not read proposals from the GOP and their leaders from the past year? I would imagine if you did that you wouldn't be asking that question right now. Wouldn't it make more sense to read their proposals from over the past year rather than appear ignorant? :poke:

Oh, I agree that it isn't likely to create many jobs Jimmy, but it will no doubt create SOME, and that's really all the government can do, so at least it makes it look like he's trying to acknowledge going small rather than acting like the government is all about the big push. And another thing I like about it is that the money is tied to actually hiring unemployed people rather than last time when incentives were offered for hiring anyone, no matter if the person was poached from another job or whatever. ANd in most cases that is exactly what happened , no one new was actually employed anywhere.

I am cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech. A home run? No. But certainly a solid double.

[jimnyc]

Don't be surprised when he gets 4 more years. All one has to do is look at the Repub field to see that its a very realistic chance.

Ross Perot would destroy him with his "shitload of economic experience" if he ran. :) Then again, mostly anyone who worked behind a register would.

People aren't even going to care about the wars and foreign nations much this time around. Everyone wants jobs and the economy rolling again. These same people have now seen who grabbed the reigns of the ship and steered us into the shitter. They also saw the majority Dems steer the next ship reight behind Obama's into the shitter. Unless you're moving your business to a foreign country next year, or your personal wealth to Swiss accounts, or getting a job overseas - you'd be a brain dead NYC rat to vote for McChimpy again.

[OCA]

In theory I agree. But I'm not a business owner. I would imagine the economy would need to pick up a bit before companies would hire that many where it would make a difference. But hell, I suppose anything that would help create a few jobs right now would be an upgrade. How many jobs were created last month? Zero?



The Dems have been making claims like that forever and they ain't done jack shit 'cept lose jobs and increase debt. But I'll assume your dream of an Obama hail Mary will happen...

Have you not read proposals from the GOP and their leaders from the past year? I would imagine if you did that you wouldn't be asking that question right now. Wouldn't it make more sense to read their proposals from over the past year rather than appear ignorant? :poke:

Actually both sides have been making claims for the last 30 years and haven't done jackshit, the Repubs claim to cut taxes but at the end of the day you pay more taxes(unless you are the top 1-3%), the Dems claim to cut taxes and increase wages for the poor and middle class but taxes go up and wages go down.

The Repubs have offered the same old bullshit that they never ever intend on doing........budget cuts, tax cuts:laugh2: and deregulation, just red meat for the ignorant Repub voters out there. When they are in power the taxes go up and the deficit increases just like it does for Dems.

I guess I was stoned when jobs were lost under Bush in massive numbers starting this whole friggin mess.

[OCA]

Ross Perot would destroy him with his "shitload of economic experience" if he ran. :) Then again, mostly anyone who worked behind a register would.

People aren't even going to care about the wars and foreign nations much this time around. Everyone wants jobs and the economy rolling again. These same people have now seen who grabbed the reigns of the ship and steered us into the shitter. They also saw the majority Dems steer the next ship reight behind Obama's into the shitter. Unless you're moving your business to a foreign country next year, or your personal wealth to Swiss accounts, or getting a job overseas - you'd be a brain dead NYC rat to vote for McChimpy again.

I ain't voting for him nor am I voting for any RINO but nothing for nothing.............watch it happen again, don't say it can't happen.

[ConHog]

Actually both sides have been making claims for the last 30 years and haven't done jackshit, the Repubs claim to cut taxes but at the end of the day you pay more taxes(unless you are the top 1-3%), the Dems claim to cut taxes and increase wages for the poor and middle class but taxes go up and wages go down.

The Repubs have offered the same old bullshit that they never ever intend on doing........budget cuts, tax cuts:laugh2: and deregulation, just red meat for the ignorant Repub voters out there. When they are in power the taxes go up and the deficit increases just like it does for Dems.

I guess I was stoned when jobs were lost under Bush in massive numbers starting this whole friggin mess.

Or if you are one of the bottom 47% who pay NOTHING.

[OCA]

Or if you are one of the bottom 47% who pay NOTHING.

So what? Maybe they are just scraping by and now you want to skim off the top of them?

Who are you? Joseph "Joe Batters" Accardo?

[ConHog]

So what? Maybe they are just scraping by and now you want to skim off the top of them?

Who are you? Joseph "Joe Batters" Accardo?

I don't care how much they are scraping by they can damn well help fund the government that provides them services. Why you believe that 3% of the population should pay 90% of the bills is beyond me. In fact you go further and scream that that isn't enough.

[OCA]

I don't care how much they are scraping by they can damn well help fund the government that provides them services. Why you believe that 3% of the population should pay 90% of the bills is beyond me. In fact you go further and scream that that isn't enough.

How do you know they are receiving services?

[ConHog]

How do you know they are receiving services?

Are you really suggesting that even a small percentage of the bottom 47% of earners aren't using public schools, public transportation, police, fire department, highways, etc etc? Good grief OCA at least attempt to be serious.

[OCA]

Nobody should have to pay taxes, from the top on down. Taxes are punitive and detrimental to growing an economy.

If the government needs cash let em have a fucking bake sale.

With that said under our current system the top 1-3% who benefit from loopholes should have those loopholes closed and sent a bill.

[ConHog]

Nobody should have to pay taxes, from the top on down. Taxes are punitive and detrimental to growing an economy.

If the government needs cash let em have a fucking bake sale.

With that said under our current system the top 1-3% who benefit from loopholes should have those loopholes closed and sent a bill.

You are hereby dismissed as a clown unworthy of further discussion.

Come back when you want to be serious.

[OCA]

Are you really suggesting that even a small percentage of the bottom 47% of earners aren't using public schools, public transportation, police, fire department, highways, etc etc? Good grief OCA at least attempt to be serious.

Why someone wants to tax people who are less likely to be able to afford it and not raise taxes on those who have no problem affording it is beyond me...............oh no wait! Its not beyond me! Its the conservative way..............screw the poor, protect the rich!

[OCA]

You are hereby dismissed as a clown unworthy of further discussion.

Come back when you want to be serious.

I accept your white flag.

[Kathianne]

Are you really suggesting that even a small percentage of the bottom 47% of earners aren't using public schools, public transportation, police, fire department, highways, etc etc? Good grief OCA at least attempt to be serious.

Ah different kettle of fish than feds. The poor do pay for schools, transportation, police, fire, local streets. They pay for it in state sales taxes and property taxes. They also pay in state income taxes, often quite punitive for those below poverty.

[ConHog]

Ah different kettle of fish than feds. The poor do pay for schools, transportation, police, fire, local streets. They pay for it in state sales taxes and property taxes. They also pay in state income taxes, often quite punitive for those below poverty.

State highways are funded by federal , as are public schools (well to some degree) as are local police and fire departments subsidized by federal grants in many cases. Same can be said for public transportation. RARELY do cities or even states have the funds to pay for these programs on their own.


And besides the point was more to illustrate that EVERYONE receives services of one sort or another from the federal government and certainly everyone should help fund those services. Why should a guy who makes $500K have to shell out 30% of that to Uncle Sam while the guy who makes $30K a year pays nothing? That isn't even close to fair. Or we in fact just saying we don't care about being fair to you in this country if you are successful, but hey if you make just a little, no problem someone else will cover you?

[Kathianne]

State highways are funded by federal , as are public schools (well to some degree) as are local police and fire departments subsidized by federal grants in many cases. Same can be said for public transportation. RARELY do cities or even states have the funds to pay for these programs on their own.


And besides the point was more to illustrate that EVERYONE receives services of one sort or another from the federal government and certainly everyone should help fund those services. Why should a guy who makes $500K have to shell out 30% of that to Uncle Sam while the guy who makes $30K a year pays nothing? That isn't even close to fair. Or we in fact just saying we don't care about being fair to you in this country if you are successful, but hey if you make just a little, no problem someone else will cover you?

The bolded are overwhelmingly funded by local property taxes. The federal contributions are beyond small. Renters, homeowners, small businesses pay for.

[ConHog]

The bolded are overwhelmingly funded by local property taxes. The federal contributions are beyond small. Renters, homeowners, small businesses pay for.


If you call almost 10% small, okay then I would have to concede that is true. If we now agree that 10% is a fairly low percentage then why can't the bottom 47% of earners in this country pay at LEAST this small amount? I mean it's only 10%


http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html


this link is a little dated, so it shows the actual percentage as 8.3, but it's actually around 9.4 at this time.

[OCA]

If you call almost 10% small, okay then I would have to concede that is true. If we now agree that 10% is a fairly low percentage then why can't the bottom 47% of earners in this country pay at LEAST this small amount? I mean it's only 10%


http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html


this link is a little dated, so it shows the actual percentage as 8.3, but it's actually around 9.4 at this time.

So you want to take 3,000 from a person that makes 30,000? You don't think that 3,000 makes a difference in their lives?

You are a cruel individual...............Scrooge.

[ConHog]

So you want to take 3,000 from a person that makes 30,000? You don't think that 3,000 makes a difference in their lives?

You are a cruel individual...............Scrooge.

and you want to make more than $190Kfrom a guy who makes $500K . What kind of greedy asshole are you? You don't think $190K makes a difference in THEIR lives? You don't think that he probably looks at that $190K and fires the guy making $30K thereby taking the ENTIRE $30K from the guy?

[Kathianne]

and the feds are in this why?

[ConHog]

and the feds are in this why?

That I couldn't tell you. But they are. If you want to advocate kicking the feds out of education, we can debate that in another thread. I see good and bad in them being involved.

However, no one can seriously argue that ever single citizen of the US uses the services of the federal government. Hell, the military, the FBI, and all other such agencies protect you no matter how much you make. WHy shouldn't EVERYONE have to help fund those?

[Kathianne]

That I couldn't tell you. But they are. If you want to advocate kicking the feds out of education, we can debate that in another thread. I see good and bad in them being involved.

However, no one can seriously argue that ever single citizen of the US uses the services of the federal government. Hell, the military, the FBI, and all other such agencies protect you no matter how much you make. WHy shouldn't EVERYONE have to help fund those?
The feds haven't a place in education. They never did. End DOE.

[OCA]

and you want to make more than $190Kfrom a guy who makes $500K . What kind of greedy asshole are you? You don't think $190K makes a difference in THEIR lives? You don't think that he probably looks at that $190K and fires the guy making $30K thereby taking the ENTIRE $30K from the guy?

Ahh but he's still got 310k, he's alright!

The 190k doesn't ever go for hiring new employes or raises for old ones(unless the employees are union).............gets put into an interest earning account for him so he can buy a new toy.

[ConHog]

The feds haven't a place in education. They never did. End DOE.

Again, that is another thread. One I'm happy to debate with you in. In THIS thread we are dealing with the current reality, which is that federal funds at least partly fund public schools.

[ConHog]

Ahh but he's still got 310k, he's alright!

The 190k doesn't ever go for hiring new employes or raises for old ones(unless the employees are union).............gets put into an interest earning account for him so he can buy a new toy.

That's you assumption. One that fits your agenda. nothing more.

[fj1200]

Okay a $4K tax credit to any business that hires someone who has been out of work for 6 months or more is a good thing.

Pointless. I'm pretty sure they tried that last time.

[fj1200]

Obama hit a home run tonight, unless you don't like job creation, tax credits and deregulation or you are a RINO and like the status quo.

$1TT was a weak ground ball, less than half that amount won't even get off the ground. This speech IS the status quo.


Tax credits, loosening up of patent laws, plans to stop corps from moving jobs overseas and closing loopholes and changing tax laws that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side of the aisle? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?

Tax credits will do nothing, stopping jobs from moving will do less and probably even make them move faster.

The other side of the aisle is less government to help the jobless. Eliminating corporate taxes would be the best option. I'd even accept losing the Bush tax cuts to get it.

[ConHog]

Pointless. I'm pretty sure they tried that last time.

Actually no. Last time the credit wasn't tied to hiring a person who was previously unemployed. This time it is. Will it change things dramatically? No. Will it get a few people hired? Probably.

[avatar4321]

Here are my thoughts:

The President made a big deal about calling a joint session of Congress to propose his jobs plan. And what do we get? Platitudes. He hasn't bothered to even write the freakin bill yet. He's had nearly 3 years in office and still hasn't bothered to write the jobs bill he is insisting we pass immediately. How on earth is anyone supposed to pass a bill that hasn't even been written yet, let alone do it immediately?

What the heck was he doing last week? He couldn't take the time to write a freakin bill? This tells me he is not at all serious about this. He had to demand to speak in front of both Chambers of Congress for this? He could have done this from the oval office last week. He could have spent the last week actually writing a bill.

My guess is he will never write a bill. He will push this off onto Reid or Pelosi, or even worse some special interest group like with the stimulus and the healtcare bill. That way when it fails completely he can try to claim it wasn't his bill that was passed. It was the Republicans fault. Despite the fact that the man hasn't even spent the slightest bit of effort to write the bill.

This is leadership? This is what we are supposed to support for a second term? Will he he gets reelected, will he actually propose an actual bill or will he continue the rhetoric and platitudes while making others do all the works?

Mr. President, show some freakin leadership for once in your life and write a bill if you really care about it. Otherwise, don't interupt the people from relaxing after a hard days work or a hard day of looking for work.

Is that too much to ask?

[avatar4321]

One more thing. I'm alittle annoyed that he hasnt provided any suggestions on what we are to cut to pay for his new jobs program. It's barely been a month and he is already trying to eliminate those so-called cuts, that him and his party agreed to in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Despicable.

[fj1200]

Actually no. Last time the credit wasn't tied to hiring a person who was previously unemployed. This time it is. Will it change things dramatically? No. Will it get a few people hired? Probably.

No. Adding MORE caveats onto a previous pointless endeavor is more pointless.

[LuvRPgrl]

Tax credits, loosening up of patent laws, plans to stop corps from moving jobs overseas and closing loopholes and changing tax laws that benefit millionaires and billionaires.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side of the aisle? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?
Increasing taxes on the rich and corps is not going to encourage companies from going overseas. So, which is it?

[LuvRPgrl]

My messiah?...............i've won already.

What is the alternative being offered from the other side? More tax cuts to benefit the rich?

So you are saying your confidence in Obama resides in the ineptness of his opponents and not his own abilities? NOt exactly an encouraging thought.

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh, I agree that it isn't likely to create many jobs Jimmy, but it will no doubt create SOME, and that's really all the government can do, so at least it makes it look like he's trying to acknowledge going small rather than acting like the government is all about the big push. And another thing I like about it is that the money is tied to actually hiring unemployed people rather than last time when incentives were offered for hiring anyone, no matter if the person was poached from another job or whatever. ANd in most cases that is exactly what happened , no one new was actually employed anywhere.

I am cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech. A home run? No. But certainly a solid double.

I have been a small business owner all my life. Cutting taxes and increasing benefits to them wont create jobs. It will only give them more profit.

Job creation starts with the consumer. Its a domino effect. Consumers spend more, factories have to ramp up and make more, they hire more. wala. Companies dont start increasing manufacturing or whatever they do until demand for their product increases, that ONLY happens at the consumer level.

MONEY, into the hands of consumers is what is needed.

The mind boggler is that so many people think its the job of the govt to create jobs.
THE GOVT DOESNT CREATE JOBS. JOBS ARE CREATED WHEN THE GOVT GETS OUT OF THE WAY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND LETS US GO ABOUT OUR BUSINESS. GUNS DONT CREATE JOBS, PEOPLE CREATE JOBS.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why someone wants to tax people who are less likely to be able to afford it and not raise taxes on those who have no problem affording it is beyond me...............oh no wait! Its not beyond me! Its the conservative way..............screw the poor, protect the rich!

Job creation?
I';ve never been hired by a poor person.

Increase taxes on corps?
They have less money to hire people and have to lay some off.

Increase taxes on the rich?
It doesnt stop them from spending more on their own personal items. Bill Gates is not going to expand his house if he pays less taxes, but his businesses will have more money to invest in Americans.

[red states rule]

You do have to admit that the $4K tax credit for each new hire who has been looking for a job for at least 6 months would probably produce positive results.

That will not inspire someone to hire a new worker. The reason people are not hiring is due the increased cost of labor thanks to Obamacare and the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year

Business owners have no idea what their costs are going to be down the road so they are sitting tight

[red states rule]

In theory I agree. But I'm not a business owner. I would imagine the economy would need to pick up a bit before companies would hire that many where it would make a difference. But hell, I suppose anything that would help create a few jobs right now would be an upgrade. How many jobs were created last month? Zero?



The Dems have been making claims like that forever and they ain't done jack shit 'cept lose jobs and increase debt. But I'll assume your dream of an Obama hail Mary will happen...

Have you not read proposals from the GOP and their leaders from the past year? I would imagine if you did that you wouldn't be asking that question right now. Wouldn't it make more sense to read their proposals from over the past year rather than appear ignorant? :poke:

Seems there is a conflict here between Pres Obama and Pres Obama.

He now wants to raise taxes of the so called rich

But in 2009..........





In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans.

Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

When Obama warned about the consequences of raising taxes, the economy was moving away from recession—growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was nearly 6 percent. Today, however, economic growth (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm) has slowed to less than 2 percent. Even before the horrible June jobs report, economists were warning about the “substantial” possibility of a double-dip recession (http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2011/06/16/shiller-double-dip-recession-prospects-substantial/). Many others agreed after the news last week. “In addition to the shock value…we need to seriously question whether a double-dip is there,” David Ader, chief treasury strategist at CRT Capital, told CNBC. “I would say it’s back on the table.”

If raising taxes in a recession would be “the last thing you want to do,” wouldn’t raising taxes in a struggling economy teetering on a double-dip be the second last thing you’d want to do?

Obama made a similar argument in December (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/17/remarks-president-and-vice-president-signing-middle-class-tax-cuts-bill), when he signed the bipartisan tax relief agreement – a deal that maintained Bush tax rates (even for the wealthy) and included additional tax breaks for businesses. “Millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades – freeing up other money to hire new workers.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html





So we have already had tax credits for business to expand and it did not work. Again, Obama is offering more of the same failed policies, and expects taxpayers to foot the bill

[red states rule]

One more thing. I'm alittle annoyed that he hasnt provided any suggestions on what we are to cut to pay for his new jobs program. It's barely been a month and he is already trying to eliminate those so-called cuts, that him and his party agreed to in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. Despicable.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn090911dAPR20110907104522.jpg

[red states rule]

Not bothering to watch him. It's a rerun of his last half dozen speeches. I never cared for reruns.

Let me know if he has all the doors locked and starts calling names and having people drug out...


Charles Krauthammer summed the speech perfectly

<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zBWwKC9mZ50" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

Does anyone agrree that Obama is acting like Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles when the Gov said this:

<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uTmfwklFM-M" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[DragonStryk72]

Oh, I merely meant that I am okay with him having the job and doing what he thinks is best but I am not okay with him just being in the office simply because he wants to be the big man. Doesn't mean I agree with him in either case, but I can respect him for having his ideas even if I disagree with him, I would have no respect for him if I knew he only pretends to care about people and actually only wanted the job to feed his own ego.

I don't think he actually expected to win, honestly, or even get the nom for the presidential. Everyone had Hilary for the win, but she went lame duck during the campaign, and Obama was able to sieze, but I don't think he thought past that.

[fj1200]

Job creation starts with the consumer.

I think demand-side has been pretty well debunked. ;)

[LuvRPgrl]

I think demand-side has been pretty well debunked. ;)

No.

[OCA]

I think demand-side has been pretty well debunked. ;)

Along with "trickle down".

[LuvRPgrl]

along with "trickle down".

nope.

[ConHog]

nope.



Hey look now OCA has it figured out. See, the top 1% of earners should give ALL of their income to the federal government so that the bottom 47% of earners can be equal to them.

[fj1200]

No.

The 30's, 70's, and the BO administration's results disagree with you.


Along with "trickle down".

If by that characterization you mean Supply Side... the 20's, early 60's, and 80's prove you wrong.

[OCA]

The 30's, 70's, and the BO administration's results disagree with you.



If by that characterization you mean Supply Side... the 20's, early 60's, and 80's prove you wrong.

Trickle down has never worked.............meaning that if you give tax cuts to the rich and corporations they will reinvest the savings into their workforce i.e. the middle class..................never happens, they take the extra cash and put it into savings and luxuries.

The 80's proved that...............it was a boom of smoke and mirrors, unsustainable.............ask Bush Sr.

[Abbey Marie]

Ah different kettle of fish than feds. The poor do pay for schools, transportation, police, fire, local streets. They pay for it in state sales taxes and property taxes. They also pay in state income taxes, often quite punitive for those below poverty.

I thought we were talking about the unemployed or barely employed, hence, poor? Anyone with a job earning enough to make a real contribution to property taxes and sales taxes, is probably not poor.

[Abbey Marie]

That will not inspire someone to hire a new worker. The reason people are not hiring is due the increased cost of labor thanks to Obamacare and the Bush tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year

Business owners have no idea what their costs are going to be down the road so they are sitting tight

Not to mention health care insurance costs.

[Kathianne]

I thought we were talking about the unemployed or barely employed, hence, poor? Anyone with a job earning enough to make a real contribution to property taxes and sales taxes, is probably not poor.

Not so. Mortgage on a condo or townhouse is less than rent in most major cities and greater metro areas.

Everything people buy in IL with certain foods and magazines/newspapers being exempt, are taxed over 9%.

[Abbey Marie]

Not so. Mortgage on a condo or townhouse is less than rent in most major cities and greater metro areas.

Everything people buy in IL with certain foods and magazines/newspapers being exempt, are taxed over 9%.

I don't doubt the taxes exist. The point was, the poor can't buy much and therefore aren't contributing much to the tax base.

[DragonStryk72]

Why someone wants to tax people who are less likely to be able to afford it and not raise taxes on those who have no problem affording it is beyond me...............oh no wait! Its not beyond me! Its the conservative way..............screw the poor, protect the rich!

Actually, Conservatives aren't against taxing the rich. Yeah, you heard me, no problem with taxing the rich. Now, we have a huge problem with unfairly taxing the rich. That's the actual issues, since 1% of the country's population is paying 40% of the bill, that seems just little unbalanced to me. Me personally, I think the income tax, and especially the progressive income tax system we use is outdated bullshit, and you can't have a serious discussion about fixing our finances as a country without replacing the outdated, inefficient manner in which we collect income.

[Gunny]

Okay a $4K tax credit to any business that hires someone who has been out of work for 6 months or more is a good thing.

No, a $4K check from the government might come close to paying off the debt incurred from being out of work since this shit for brains got in office.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't doubt the taxes exist. The point was, the poor can't buy much and therefore aren't contributing much to the tax base.

We dont even really have poor people in the US. Go to the Philippines sometime and you will see what I mean. Kids eating out of garbage dumps.

As for who pays what, and where it goes, its too massive and complicated to follow the money.
Look at what they do with gasoline taxes, and SS, they spend it on other projects than roads and retirement income.

[LuvRPgrl]

There is so much corruption in this administration that was suppose to be the second coming of Washington, be transparent, etc, etc, I cant even remmeber all their names.

Some liberal D from upper North East, politician, I think his name is something like Dikakis?
Got busted taking kickbacks in the amount of 20 million or more for giving contracts to preferred companies.

IMMELT. Obama appointed him to lead the jobs creation board, or some such silly thing. He was up there with Obama during his speech about stimulating the economy, ENDING CORP LOOPHOLES, ENDING JOBS FROM GOING OVERSEAS, and getting Americans back to work.
....He is CEO of GE.
.....He is in a picture with Chinese officials after consumating a deal.
He now has over 2 BILLION US dollars in China, saved, and paid NO TAXES on it.
20% of his workforce has been transferred to China.
He is very effective at creating jobs, IN CHINA.

[DragonStryk72]

You know what, I know how to add thousands to millions of jobs to this economy. PUT THE FUCKING WORLD TRADE CENTERS BACK UP. How many places of business were contained in each one of those two buildings? How many construction workers would be put back to work getting them rebuilt? How many businesses would be competing to get into the new space? How many of the businesses that surround Ground Zero would be helped/saved by such an influx?

And none of this artsy crap. Just use the architectural specs of the previous buildings and rebuild them. They worked great for years with no real complaints, and are quite recognizable on their own. Sure we can do a memorial, on the ground floor of the buildings, nothing too huge, but there.

[fj1200]

Trickle down has never worked.............meaning that if you give tax cuts to the rich and corporations they will reinvest the savings into their workforce i.e. the middle class..................never happens, they take the extra cash and put it into savings and luxuries.

The 80's proved that...............it was a boom of smoke and mirrors, unsustainable.............ask Bush Sr.

Your deft use of... umm... well... nothing more than a pejorative term is just damning to my posit. :rolleyes: You shouldn't try to discuss something until you actually know what you're talking about. Once you get up to speed then maybe you could explain how the antithesis of the 80's (the 70's for those keeping track) proved that the 80's were unsustainable. :laugh:

[red states rule]

The 30's, 70's, and the BO administration's results disagree with you.



If by that characterization you mean Supply Side... the 20's, early 60's, and 80's prove you wrong.

Supply side does work and that is why Reagan was re-elected in 1984 with 49 states




snip


On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120


Obama needs to read up on history and demand not more spending but more tax cuts accross the board, repeal Obamacare, reduce government regulations, and stop treating the private sector like the enemy