The President's address to Congress?

Ummm..... Was that last night? The Saints vs Packers game

He really knows how to help get us out of debt.....let's just spend another $400 billion.....now that should really help!!

We have a President?

Packers win!.. What a great game. Helluva way to start the season.

Early reports say it's the best plan he's come up with. Even the Pugs are having a hard time finding fault with it. The speech was a far more defiant tone than I've ever seen from this guy. They are finding all kind's of problem's with Romney's though. Everything he proposed has already failed. Perry and Bachman aren't saying a word right now.

A pretty clever approach. Use a bunch of things that almost all members of congress (republican and democrat) have agreed previously would work and dare them to pass it. If they don't, it smacks of politics, if they do they're part of the solution (and future problem).

At least he has the guts to put something out there other than "we have to stop spending."

Exactly Rob, he left em no where to go.

Sorry for the late entry here; My .02-he also included poison pills for both sides-every tax that both the Dems have Repubs have refused already in previous proposals.
Why? Because he knows his proposal (son-of-stimulus) will never pass-and he can pillory the Republican House with it until the election.
The problem-his credibility with the electorate is zilch. They understand what a scammer he is, and will not be fooled by this attempt either.
Some bloggers are even suggesting its worth a 470billion debt to pass it, have it fail- which it will-so that Obama will have no one to blame as he sails into the sunset via 2012.
Leadership...not so much. The job he's trying to save is his.

Big Daddy, It's never too late to make a reply. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion on here that they can openly discuss whenever. We may not all agree, and see eye to eye, but that's what makes it interesting. With that said, you have every right to think Obama's work plan will not work as presented. Most republican's don't. Why? Because the republican party as a whole is stuck in the 1950's. Look, I HATE change. If I had my way, we'd all be driving cars that have 500 cubic inch engines with 1000 CFM carburetors that chug a gallon of leaded gas every 10 miles. We have to look past that era to become a more modern society. With new investors and start up companies that can generate stiff competition to the big corporations to push innovation into the market place. Today, everything is at a standstill. Markets are stagnate because we have reached a plateau. The small companies that have got us here over the last 50 years have now become huge corporations that have control over everything. Since there hasn't been any major assistance given to entice growth in small/new companies that can bring rapid innovation, mature large corporations are able to throttle back production in products, and service. Only doing the bare minimum in workforce that is needed to maintain, while still raking in higher profits than ever before. If we continue allowing this to happen, we will never see a turn around.

I guess i'm stupid but isnt this new job bill the same as the last one they poop on us

No matter how much fairly dust he throws on it...its still the same chit... or am i missing
something... oh wait he going to add
some more government jobs... and maybe a few tax breaks

But i like the other side of the coin also... spend more and that should work and what
happen to the super train projects

Remember i'm simple so if you are going to try to explain to me how this is going to work,
break out all the shiny coins and throw in the air
oh pretty....

JP, You're always assuming things. Read it and tell me what you think.

In the simplest terms.
OB's economist's put together a plan the people supported in the D.L. negotiation's last month. 70 percent of Americans wanted a "balanced approach" of spending cut's and revenue increases. In fact, I can't find an economic argument against it. The US chamber of commerce, who was never very kind to OB, say's it has the potential to create over a million job's before next election. Which, if this legislation is passed, OB will win. If it's not passed, and he can do a decent job of laying the entire blame on replblicans, He'll still win. The AJA, is from everything I've read, based on Clinton's policy. If you want a tax cut, earn it. I really don't think anyone can argue how well that worked.
Putting money in the hands of people who will spend it creates demand. Everything has to start there. Increased demand creates a need for increased supply. That's the exponential job maker of supply side economic's. Everything economically depends on demand creating the need for more supply.

Supply is dependant upon demand.
Demand is dependant upon spending
Spending is dependant upon employment
Employment is dependant upon supply
Supply, well you get the picture....

Politically, he's saying to republicans, you want to reform S.S. and Medicare? You're gonna reform taxes. That's why he brought up the pledges in his speech.
Denny; Good luck with anybody but me reading that

Pat, Obama's American Jobs Act looks great, the only thing I want to see now is the breakdown of where the revenue will come from in order to pay for it. Republicans are slamming it left and right saying that the middle class will foot the bill. The funny thing is that the republican's idea of bringing this country back to prosperity with jobs is by deregulating the EPA, OSHA, FDA and any other division that provides health and safety. What they want to do is axe minimum wage laws and dump hazardous waste into our rivers and oceans. Republican logic is that less regulation means more businesses will want to be based in the United States. I'll admit, that is true. Business want to be based where they can legally pay their employees five dollars an hour, whip them like slaves, hire kids to work in dirty ass coal mines, dump toxins into the nearest river, drill for oil in the everglades, and do it all tax free in true republican spirit.

I read half way thru it and pass out
I dont assume chit, and i don't believe everthing that is posted in black and white either,
let see Obama back is to the wall and now he comes out with
this new super duper job plan all hail the great one...yea right..

Let me see if i can remember this...but wasnt his old job plan suppose to created 2.5 million
jobs by 2011.. oh yea and that was written in black and white also..hmmmmmm
and that was in 08..
and his words back then..."IF we don't act swifly and boldly, most experts now believe
that we could lose millions of jobs"

That plan was aim at jump starting job creation... it never did.. so just because it written
with different words this time its going to work..
What i find funny that even Obama yea the great one...said that his new plan isnt a silver
bullet and it wont fix everything
then why the !@# should we trust him again!!
and i google just like you do and put my toes in other forums.. and from what i read even
think tanks don't give this plan much of a chance...

14 million unemployed with no new jobs created in Aug/Sept , hmmmmm this new plan of his only add one million new jobs..
my math might be off but those numbers dont seen to add up... and he needs time, something that he doesnt have

i rather talk about Van damm and Segal ... you know your other heros..

LOL... i found this and thought it was a little funny

Rather than offer a new road map for recovery and reform, he merely dusted off a tired agenda of old ideas wrapped in freshly partisan rhetoric,” Kyl said.

The double standard is disgusting. They call the stimulus failed because it didn't do everything it said it would. So by that standard, where does that leave the Tax Cut's that will pay for themselves? So far the cost has far outweighed the benefit. The stimulus on the other hand, well it's no coincidence that the recovery came to a grinding halt at the same time the stimulus dollars did.
If tax cut's in fact create job's and pay for themselves, when can we expect to actually see this dynamic? Because we ain't seen it yet, and it's been 10 years now. Unemployment was five point eight percent in 08. That rose to over 7 before OB walked in the door. No, he wasn't ready to deal with the worst economic meltdown in 40 years. The real question is, who would be?
Closing loopoles in an effort to rase revenue, effects only the top 1 percent of the country. So how many good's and services does that 1 percent buy or not buy because they can't write it off anymore? The answer is next to none. They still need everything they did before. Except they can still afford to buy/ pay for it. They won't really miss it. A family of 4 with a limited income of say fifty thousand a year, represents a huge demographic of the population, in the neighborhood of 70 million people out of the 300 million in the US. Their little fifteen hundred dollar tax break will be spent, creating thousands of job's for people who will also spend money as opposed to the possible hundreds the 1 percent will create. As has been shown many times, the bush tax cut's were arbitrary. The only qualification was how much you made. It was assumed the money would be reinvested in some venture that would expand or create job's. Just like it was assumed the cash injections of the TARP plan would be loaned out. Yeah like that happened. Instead, like the tax cut's, it was kept to shore up the cash position of that bank/individual or invested on Wall Street for a faster return with less risk. And they still are today. So which is really failed policy? I hardly think 10 years of lost job's and increasing debt is a success. But that's what the repub's want us to believe.

Simple folks have short memories.. we believe in what we SEE NOW!! OB and the Dem can
blame the Repub all they want and
people can say well he walk right into it... and it was bush fault but how long can
the Dem keep blaming bush...

When the great one walk in thru those doors he own both houses... and lets not forget
the Dem own both house the last two yrs when Bush was still in office..
So if my math is right thats three yrs that the Dem own both houses and still couldnt come up with something...but it still the repub fault

Come on now....

I guess we also blame all this on Bush and the Repul

Jetty, You must live on planet oblivious. The chart you posted has old fart republican written all over it. Who cares what the unemployment rate was in the 1930's, or what the budget deficit was after WW2. That was eighty years ago. How come we can't talk about how many jobs would be created today in 2011 if we started building wind and solar power facilities, or get all the teachers, police and fire fighters that have been laid off back to work, plus all the laid off construction workers, engineers, inspectors, and city personnel to start rebuilding important infrastructure like bridges, roads, dams, dikes, sewers, along with all of the other public services utilities that have gone beyond their life expectancies. Since Obama took office in January 2009 (17 months ago) it's been nothing but bullshiet from the Grand Old Party. How can we have bi partisan ship when all we have is grief and gridlock. Obama can only do so much in such a short amount of time when having to deal with no compromise on important measures. At what point does it have to reach to finally realize, yeah both parties should've worked together. Republicans depend so much on oil to keep their party alive. If science and technology took over the duty of oil and coal in the united states, the GOP wouldn't even exist. That's why we're in such a slump and can't move on to where we should be as a global leader.

You're not answering my question...Obama and the Dem had control and didnt do chit
with it and then the People spoke and
the Dem lost a bunch of seats (and still losing seats) but now you want to hold
hands and sing songs and if the repub don't do it.. they are the bad guys...

Oh and how are all those green jobs working out how can a company get a half
"BILLION" dollars and go belly up in one year
now that was some funny chit...Obama standing there a yr ago "Hail to the Chief" whoo hoo and in one yr it goes bankrupt..

let me guess Bush and the GOP bankrupt "Solyndra" yea they did it
and you can laugh at that chart all you want... it was a record that nobody since OB
has broken..
How long does Obama need?? it bullchit from the GOP and i guess all the people that are
voting them in are also all full of BS..
You have yet to answer what happen to those three yrs that the Dem control the house
and OB has one year...psssss because of
their BS they lost and now they, like you are crying that the GOP doesnt want to hold hands...But it has to be PASSED Now ...BS!!!
Just like a Dem blame it on others

Almost every job that you posted is a goverment/state job...hmmmm tell me sherlock
how are we suppose to paid all those worker??

Raise taxes on the rich...yea like thats going to paid for all that, or wait raise the taxes
on people that are barely making it..
In 08 he promise 2.5 million jobs by 2011(the houses were control by the Dem) ... well
its 2011 and there are 14 million unemployed and counting... but you want to add more
goverment jobs and again..who going to paid for those jobs..

You can spin my words all you want but if you want to debate something then just answer my questions...
they really arent that hard for someone as smart as you.
But remember i'm a simple guy... quit sidestepping the question.. you want
the GOP to hold hands now, but when they control both houses... they got high on spending money and now its all gone...but
hey its Bush fault Planet Oblivious ...shhhhh i wish

But please at least answer one question... who is going to paid all those teachers/cops/construction and so on...
where is that money coming from...please enlighten me...
pretty please ... i still havent found it on that fact sheet you posted...and i guess nobody else has

Jetty, I didn't answer your question because the post above mine (crashmister's) had already answered it for you. The republicans had control in washington in all 3 houses from 2000-2006. It went from a surplus to a 9 trillion dollar deficient in six years, unemployment was also skyrocketing. It took a democratic controlled house with a democratic president to put the breaks on unemployment. If it wasn't for that, I think we would be in worse condition than what we have today.

Unemployment figures, George Bush- Obama transition shown below.





I asked the same question earlier in the thread, those details haven't been released, yet.

The super committee should have it up later this week.

Here's what the tax cut's bought us. By any standard, that's failed policy.

LOL... most of those charts were prepared by Nancy Pelosi... yea i should really trust
those numbers
Here's a FACT Obama has created NOTHING!!

Here's the bottom line all those charts mean "Nothing" to people out of work
and every person that comes into office gets the crap left by the other person..everybody runs into this

Was Bush blaming everybody else?... but it seems that everytime Obama numbers dont
start to add up... ITS BUSH FAULT.. come on now
even for you that has to be getting old...

and you are right numbers don't lie... 14 million out of work and counting...
and the super comm is going to tell us..... LOL....

If Obama had taken over a company and has these numbers... his azz would've seen
the door.. if something fails once, you dont give it another chance
but Dem seem to think that throwing money at everything will fix it... How that working for you so far
Oh and you never said anything about that solar panel company that went belly up
after getting half a billion of tax payer money
Hmmmmmmm

hell i can find charts too
On a side note>
The failed “stimulus” bill was passed by the majority Democrats in both chambers of Congress, without one GOP vote, the same for the abominable “ObamaCare.” That’s why the voters turned the Congress out in 2010 and returned it to the GOP, to stop the reckless spending and insane policies of this administration and the donks in Congress.

Jetty, the charts you posted are the same as mine. They're both showing the upward trend of unemployment rates peaking at the end of Bush's term in office. Once Obama became president, unemployment started going down. The same goes for the annual deficit. Both are seeing a reduction. I don't know why you can't admit to this, it's right in front of you. All of us want to see unemployment and the economy get back to normal, where everyone has secure jobs and money to save and spend. But it can't happen overnight. A realistic economic growth rate that has long term sustainability is around two percent, Obama's close to that percentage. Any more and you run the risk of asset bubbles like the housing market crash and financial crisis. You have to think: we had eight years of failed policy, outrageous spending, tax cuts, two wars, and zero revenue to show for it. Do you really think all of that can be reversed in seventeen months?

LOL... like i said already.. everyone that has step into that office has step into chit,
but you and the Dem keep blaming it on the other guy..

If i went to work for a company that was going down hill and Double the spending and
lose more work for my company.. would i still have a Job?
Its easy for me to say "Hell the other guy left this place in a mess" and i need more
time..
Obama double everything bush did in his short time in office and you want him to have
even more time

How the hell do you figure the job rate going down... He created so-called goverment
jobs.. what took 5 people to do something
under Bush.. Obama created 100 more jobs to do the same thing...

You can created jobs out of thin air all you want, but the fact of the matter is goverment
jobs are paid by taxes from people that don't have jobs..
again 14 million people would disagree with you and the sheep that keep listening to Obama..

Hell i can create jobs out of thin air also...let see that 500 million they gave to that solar panel company create jobs for one yr

That's not true, Bush walked into Clinton's economy that had 116 months of consecutive economic growth with unemployment at it's lowest level.



Now you're wasting my time, the chart you posted shows both deficit reduction (reduced spending), and unemployment reduction under Obama. What difference does it make if the jobs are government or not. Government jobs are still jobs where you work, and pay taxes, just like a non government job. Oh, and thanks for sharing the fact that government jobs are paid by taxes from people that don't have jobs. That has to be the most stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Great graphs just wanted to add one that started in 2000 and finished in 2008 during Bush's awesome 8 year term.