home

Obama's Speech: It's an Urgent Time

President Obama has unveiled his $447 billion jobs proposal

President Obama is now speaking. "It's an urgent time." Live blog follows:

Having to watch Boehner behind him ruins it from the outset. Obama says something speechy and gets a standing ovation.

He's sending Congress the American Jobs Act. There's nothing controversial about it. Everything in it will be paid for. Everything. It will create more jobs teachers, construction workers.

It will cut payroll taxes in half for every worker and every small business. It will provide a jolt or a stalled economy. You should pass this jobs plan right away.[More..]

Small business owners will get a tax break if they hire new workers.

Four times in first five minutes he says "You should pass it right away."

He plays on animosity to China. We're gonna let China build new roads and bridges when we have thousands of construction workers waiting for jobs here.

This is America. Every child deserves a great school and we can give it to them if we act now.

The Act will repair 35,000 schools right now. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects all across the country. No more earmarks, boondoggles or bridges to nowhere.

It's bipartisan. "You should pass it right away."

Thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work.

We will issue loans on two criteria: How much a project is needed and what it will do for the economy.

Businesses will get extra tax credits if they hire veterans. "The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home." Standing ovation. Even Boehner this time.

Low income Americans will have more ladders out of poverty.

Business owners will get a $4,000. tax credit if they hire someone who has been out work six months or more. It extends unemployment insurance for another year. "You should pass it, right away."

The typical working family will get a $1,500 tax credit next year.

Now is not the time to raise middle class taxes. You should pass it right away.

The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit. The deficit reduction act He's asking Congress to cut more than the trillion dollar in spending cuts already passed in July. He'll be releasing a more ambitious plan on Monday. He will "propose modest adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid."

The new spending cuts won't happen abruptly. He recognizes there are some in his party who don't want any changes to Medicare or Medicaid. We must reform it.

We have to reform medicare to strengthen it." All the Republicans stand and cheer. Then the Dems join them.

We must reform the corporate tax code. We should give breaks to companies that create jobs in the U.S.

We can reduce the deficit and pay for the job plan in the process. But we have to decide what our priorities are.

This isn't political grandstanding or class warfare. It's simple math. These are real choices. He's pretty sure he knows what most Americans would choose and it's not even close.

We'll speed up payments to companies. Cut the red tape for start-ups that want to go public. Help more people refinance their homes at rates that are now nearly 4%.

We're going to speed up the patent process so people can turn their ideas into money faster. We'll make trade agreements that make it easier to sell goods in Panama. He wants to see people in South Korea driving Fords.

He created a job council to come up with ideas for building new jobs. We're going to make sure the next phase of manufacturing takes place here, not in China.

He realizes some have a different theory for how to build the economy -- cut government spending and eliminate most government regulations. He'll work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending. He's ordered a review of all government regulations. We should have no more regulation than the health safety and public welfare require.

What he won't do is allow this economic downturn to wipe out the protections Americans have counted on for decades. He rejects that people have to choose between jobs and their safety. We don't have to chip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy.

Obama moves to talking about history. Now he's advocating spending on research and education. "Where would we be if [students] hadn't had that chance."

"Members of Congress it is time for us to meet our responsibilities." Standing ovation.

He repeats his jobs act is a proposal that is bipartisan and will be paid for.

The next election is 14 months away. The people who sent us here don't have the luxury of waiting 14 months. Biden now stands to applaud.

People need help now. "I won't pretend that this plan will solve all our problems."

Regardless of the arguments we've had in the past, you should should pass this bill. "I intend to take this message to every corner of this country. I ask every American who agrees to raise their voice." (What about those who don't agree, should they stay silent?)

Let's meet the moment, let's get to work.

He's done, ends with a standing ovation.

ABC news cuts out to cover a new terror threat.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | A New Specific Terror Threat for 9/11 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Already with "we can only do so much" (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    to remind me of Ga6thDem's take on the constant refrain that the li'l ol' president can't be expected to get things done:  He's the imPOTUS.

    I thought i came up with that! (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:47:53 PM EST
    I guess it's an obvious one though!

    Parent
    Kudos if you did so (none / 0) (#33)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 09:02:02 PM EST
    as I certainly may have remembered incorrectly as to the author, but the clever term was memorable.

    Parent
    Could you point out that quote (none / 0) (#58)
    by Farmboy on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    in the transcript? Thanks.

    Parent
    Thanks; here's the exact quote (none / 0) (#61)
    by Towanda on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    that night, along his usual lines of the line that I paraphrased without the transcript:

    Those of us here tonight can't solve all our nation's woes.

    But you knew that, since you had the transcript.

    Parent

    here's a jab (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:16:44 PM EST
    There's a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that's on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America.

    Heh.

    And (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:24:06 PM EST
    you need to take that road between Cincinnati and Covington to get to Goettafest. And as someone from a family of goetta eaters, that's no bridge to nowhere.

    Parent
    The "pay for it part" is ambiguous (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:24:38 PM EST
    and uninspired.

    Added benefit for Obama (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:25:05 PM EST
    By extending the payroll tax cut he also continues to bleed money away from Social Security, which brings even closer the date when the trust fund is empty. OMG! we must kill SS to save it.

    Precisely. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:36:05 PM EST
    Next, pre-existing conditions and medicare. Geebus, why would medicare want to cover pre-existings?

    I think he's thrown in the towel. If he hasn't, he ought to, because he's bad for the US. Others may be worse, but he, in the white house, is terrible for the people of the US, and for continued governance.
     I wouldn't be upset if he quit and went home, because that would leave an adult in the chair. I don't like that adult, but...

    Parent

    There it is: "Every proposal (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:41:22 PM EST
    in this will be paid for."  And away from scrutiny of the viewing public, he will tell Congress this week how to do so, by cutting SS and Medicare.

    I read that this plan actually will not create any jobs.  It's again just to not lose more jobs.

    So 25 jobless Americans -- the minimum real number -- are going to stay screwed.

    Parent

    The cuts will be put into the future (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:43:15 PM EST
    and can be discarded by the next Congress (a la the "doc fix.")

    My opinion is always wrong on his speeches, but I think he did himself a favor tonight. I give him a B+

    Parent

    Not far enough into the future (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    for me and others of us, not at our age.

    I hope that it is fixed for you and my children.

    But my children will have to support me, after all.

    Parent

    The speech (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:19:23 PM EST
    was okay but the problem with Obama as always is what is he going to pre-concede away from what he's saying here? I wonder if nothing will get through but the cuts he's planning and no spending.

    Anyway, I think he should have just stuck to spending on a jobs program not worry about how it was going to paid for and go from there.

    Parent

    What makes you think that the cuts (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    that the president has been promoting since 2007 will be discarded by the next Congress especially if the Republicans control the House and/or the Senate?

    What happens if they are not discarded by the next congress but the powers that be take the opportunity to expand the cuts now that Obama and the Dems have opened the door and invited them in.  

    Parent

    IIRC the Dems were going to "fix" (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:11:23 PM EST
    FISA once Obama became president. Didn't happen. Not a good idea IMO to pass bad legislation on the off chance that it might be discarded by the next Congress.  

    Parent
    Sure they fixed FISA (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:17:29 PM EST
    They made BushCo's revisions effectively permanent.

    Parent
    Casey, I kept thinking (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    the exact same thing.  SS would have been fine for many years, and much, much longer if they took the cap off of SS withholding  If they keep cutting the payroll tax, it won't be.  I guess they figured that not enough people were buying all their doom and gloom about SS going bankrupt "any day now!" so they decided to crash it deliberately.

    Parent
    I can't be objective on this (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CST on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:35:38 PM EST
    I work in transportation and I do a lot of work on school improvement projects.  This will directly benefit me, and it probably also needs doing.  I realize most people are not in that boat.

    I (used to) work (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:39:06 PM EST
    in schools.

    Not enough for me to support this piece of shinola, especially the 'payroll tax holiday.'

    I have no doubt that I'll be asked again to pay to make up for this, either through shortened benefits or through more payroll taxes or both...

    Sheez. I want my job back, but this idiot doesn't.get.it.

    Parent

    I'm ambivalent, but (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:45:08 AM EST
    no question if they cut the employer contribution to SS as well as employee, it will make a significant difference for me as a self-employed person who pays both.  As it is, I'm already having to dip into my modest retirement savings every year to pay my tax bill just in order to get by.

    Parent
    Anything (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:41:00 PM EST
    that involves infrastructure I'm on board with and it won't benefit me financially in any way.

    Parent
    I suppose funding structural improvements (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    and re-hiring teachers will eventually result in a trickle-down effect for others so, hopefully, the rest of us can hang-on until then. I don't begrudge a more immediate effect for you or others though I would love to see some $$ spent on green projects that would provide training and jobs for the non-muscular, while, also, Winning the Future (what happened to that?)!

    Parent
    I should be happy for structural improvements. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:11:14 PM EST
    They will allow me to drive to my interviews easier.

    Of course, my age and physical condition won't hurt at all.

    And all the while, the retirement and medicare age keep rising.

    Gee, is it President Obama, or Major Major? because the end result for folks like Towanda and me is Catch-22.

    Parent

    Infrastructure improvements (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:28:04 PM EST
    I hope none of them are like this project:

    Link

    In Issaquah, we call it the 6 million dollar bridge for one guy...because literally about one guy uses it...a man with bad knees who runs/limps in yellow rain gear in 80 degree weather every day...hysterical...I assume he thinks summoning heat stroke will help him lose weight?

    Very - VERY few people walk over the interstate at that place...but it was a shovel-ready project....

    Parent

    if my government is going to waste money (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    on stupid cr@p, I'd much rather have it waste money on a 6 million dollar bridge so that a man with bad knees can go jogging in the rain, than on bombs to blow up Iraqis.

    Also, I doubt all 6 million of it was spent on materials.  A lot of that money ended up in the pockets of employees.  I would waste money all day on $6 million dollar useless bridges if it put people back to work.  I would pay people to dig holes and fill them.  We need people working.

    Of course, we do also have infrastructure that actually needs rebuilding.  So it would be much better to spend money on that.  But I am not gonna freak out over an extra bridge or two.  It's not killing anyone.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:35:59 PM EST
    We have infrastructure that actually DOES need rebuilding.  That's the whole point of my argument.

    I'm not against infrastructure rebuilding.  I'm against stupid crap like this.

    Parent

    And yeah (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    stimulus money way used to pay for it....


    Parent
    I'm just as effed as you- (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:34:22 PM EST
    I'm not young and have no health care and no job and little hope for either. On the plus side, I don't have prostate cancer(because I don't have a prostate) but probably have some type of undiagnosed female-centric cancer, which I'm unaware of due to lack of screenings. :( Believe me, I was counting on Medicare and SS as much as anyone.

    On a side note: Braves sweep their two make-up games with the Mets!!! You gotta find a little sunshine where you can.

    Parent

    More of that, and leave out the SS revenue killing (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    tax cut, and I'd be on board. I didnt see it, but it sounds like there are some good ideas mixed with the tax cuts. We'll see what happens.


    Parent
    if i'm a small business (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    & i have no customers because there is no demand, a $4K tax cut for hiring someone won't do sh!t for me

    Congratulations! (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    You belong on Wall Street as an economic advisor. lol

    Was waching, I think cnbc, this morning and hi-flyer financial guru, Ric Edelman, said exactly what you just said. He said, businessmen want customers walking through their door before considering hiring more staff. You can give them all the tax tricks in the world and they won't hire a soul. Only well paid workers with jobs, creating demand, will push them to hire.

    Parent

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:48:28 AM EST
    as some small business owner pointed out in something I was watching this evening, hiring an employee is a long-term commitment for a small business if you have any soul at all, and a short-term tax break doesn't make you more likely to take on a long-term commitment you might have to break next year.


    Parent
    given that the 0-clint-bummer's cla$$ of (none / 0) (#26)
    by seabos84 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:27:36 PM EST
    social parasites will get paid well power pointing up and down the 4 grand tax cut -

    WHO cares about YOU?

    When I was a 10 buck an hour 28 year old cook in Boston in '88, I figured that all these highly degreed highly credentialed highly paid high flyers were gonna make stuff work better -

    isn't part of this meritocracy idea the notion that those at the top are The Best ... at more than back stabbing, butt kissing, pocket lining ...?

    maybe The Best at running things, instead of just the The Best at making powerpoints, excuses and fat paychecks?

    oh well, at least the fascists have candidates who are genuine liars and honest thieves - I couldn't vote for 'em, BUT, I know what they'll do.

    phuck 0bummer - defunding Social Security -

    rmm.  

    Parent

    kee-rist... I should be happy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:14:00 PM EST
    that his poll numbers convinced him it's an urgent time. Now, if he could come up with more than a half-a$$ed plan...

    The urgent time was years ago (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:46:04 PM EST
    and Obama was having beers at the White House.

    We're past desperation time out here.

    Parent

    This sums it up pretty well IMO (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:20:55 PM EST
    It's like a tasting menu: Good stuff in small portions. But the $300 billion question is whether you would accept entitlement cuts in exchange for this deal, because that's what it's going to be. Bearing in mind that the boost to GDP growth is projected to be <1%, I say thanks but no thanks. FDLcomment

    Entitlement cuts will also pay for lowering the marginal tax for corporations from 35% to between 23% - 29%.

    We must reform the corporate tax code.


    It's (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by chrisvee on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:28:02 PM EST
    a jobs tapas bill. ;-)

    Parent
    All the Republicans stand and cheer. (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:28:14 PM EST
    Then the Dems join them. We'll see how many of these Democrats retain their seats if they go along with gutting Medicare and S.S.

    Yeah, it was "urgent" that we address (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    the crisis in health care, too, and all we got was something that might take effect in 2014 - after giving Big Insurance a three-year head start on ratcheting up premiums; this is more of the same - urgency of rhetoric, but devoid of urgency of action.

    It's not like this was something that just reared its ugly head - this has been an issue since Obama took office - and he has failed to do what needed to be done.

    And I don't see anything in what he is offering now that translates into success.

    Guess that depends on how you (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:58:07 PM EST
    define success. If you define success as being able to use the job crisis as the mechanism to sell cuts to the safety net programs and "fixing" the corporate tax code, this attempt could prove to be successful where previous attempts have failed.

    You can see how the marketing of jobs now - cuts later is being used to trick the public into acceptance.  

    Parent

    I don't define success that way, and I don't (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:14:44 PM EST
    know any real Democrats who do.

    I also don't see it as a successful means of putting people back to work, lowering the unemployment rate, or increasing aggregate demand.

    I'm still looking for the winning electoral strategy in an epic fail for the majority of average Americans; I don't expect to find it.

    Parent

    I think we are going to soon (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:18:09 PM EST
    find out how many real Democrats are currently in Congress.

    I also don't see it as a successful means of putting people back to work, lowering the unemployment rate, or increasing aggregate demand but I do see it being used as an excuse to cut domestic and safety net programs. Guess we will see just how many of the Dems in Congress go along with Obama's agenda. Enough to make it happen this time IMO.  

     

    Parent

    I am not optimistic. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:36:24 PM EST
    Deficit hysteria has taken over, and there is virtually no one who seems to understand how this country's monetary and fiscal system actually works; this is not a good indication that there will be any substantive pushback against the we-have-to-balance-spending-with-cutting crowd.  They're not listening to us, they're not listening to some of the brightest economic voices; they are determined to march us to the sea, and unaware or uncaring that they are taking us all over the cliff.

    We will be left to save ourselves as best we can; I have no idea what that means, but I think I need to have a plan of my own.


    Parent

    Mixed feelings about his speech (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:36:12 PM EST
    Why does he have to put in the Medicare and Soc Sec cutting in this speech?  Even if he wants it himself, the Republicans are going to demand it and he would have something to bargain with getting this jobs money.  He comes to the podium having negotiated the whole thing out in his head and then wonders why he gets his arse kicked when the negotiations have run their course and everyone who would vote for him is mad as hell at him.

    He could have campaigned on it all too, and none of us would have been the wiser that he wanted to cut Soc Sec and Medicare.  We could have all been free to believe that he gave up a few things to create desperately needed jobs.  He's a poorer poker player than I am, you can grade that pathetic.

    And he wants Koreans driving our cars?  You had better make some smaller cars then, their roads aren't as big as ours.  We had a used four door Hyundai over there and it was Cadillac huge in South Korea.  Ten years ago South Koreans were putting Solar hot water heaters on all their roofs and they had those spiral light bulbs too.  That was the first place that I saw them....ten years before Americans began using them.

    oh, MT, sometimes you're so silly (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:10:35 PM EST
    "Why does he have to put in the Medicare and Soc Sec cutting in this speech? "

    Because he had to whine in public and show everyone how he's even willing to piss off his own base before begging the Republicans to give him a few scraps of what he wanted.

    Of course, cutting funds for the neediest among us is equivalent to ever more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us.

    Parent

    From data I've read, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:42:49 PM EST
    the S. Korean trade deal will result in a net job loss of 100,000 - 200,000 jobs.

    Parent
    if this "jobs plan" (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 10:37:05 PM EST
    was put together in conjunction with his economic advisers, he should fire every single one them, right now, this very second. they're worse than idiots, they're a danger to themselves and the country.

    any you, angryblackguy, need to take some basic econ classes, maybe read some krugman & stiglitz, and contrast/compare to friedman. it is very, painfully clear to me that you have little understanding, on even a fundamental level, of how economies, at the macro level, work. if you did, you'd see this plan for what it is, pathetic.

    the sad part is, it coulda been a contender, had he strained himself just the least little bit. as it is, it is a plan built to fail.

    frankly, i don't care how it affects obama politically. i do care how this affects the millions of un & underemployed. as far as i can see, they best not get their hopes up.

    Did ya'll see the Bro handshake (none / 0) (#13)
    by Joan in VA on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 07:00:59 PM EST
    Boehner forced on Biden when he arrived? Hilarious! Then Boehner regaled him with a blow-by-blow of his last golf game.

    Thought (none / 0) (#25)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 08:26:44 PM EST
    With much of the money to be spent in 2011 and 2012, this could have a larger immediate impact than the original stimulus, which was stretched over more years.

    On substance, I think it was as good as one could reasonably expect in terms of a plan that has some chance of passing.

    You can't be too angry in a congressional speech, but he was fairly intense, I give it a 8 out if 10.

    I am sure there will be much to dislike but that is to be expected.

    I agree that I liked his tone (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:52:48 AM EST
    a lot.  It didn't sound entirely comfortable to my ears, but the relative ferocity of it was welcome.

    I hope you're right that it'll have some actual economic impact, but I rather doubt that it will.  And the question is whether it's worth it, either economically or societally, to trade cuts in the already thread-bare safety net for a minimal program of this sort.

    Parent

    this is a depression, damn it (none / 0) (#39)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:01:00 PM EST
    & these are small-bore, cynical "fixes," not merely inadequate to relieve the desperation of millions but actually calculated to aid & abet the crimes of the unindicted co-conspirators who continue to steal the nation's wealth & gamble most of it away

    Paul Krugman (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    'Wanted to insert a mention of Krugman's column today (as well as the NYT editorial.) Briefly: Krugman very positive about Obama's jobs plan...liked the plan, liked the approach.

    Since a number of people at this site find Paul Krugman to be an acceptable economist....

    Parent

    i think Krugman has been right (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    in his criticisms of the Obama administration

    & Krugman is free to like the so-called jobs plan, but i've read his column & i think it's fairly faint praise, or tempered criticism if you like - i don't think it's accurate to say that Krugman is "very positive" about the plan when he says this:

    [T]he new Obama jobs plan . . . is significantly bolder and better than I expected. It's not nearly as bold as the plan I'd want in an ideal world.

    Of course, it isn't likely to become law . . .

    It calls for about $200 billion in new spending . . . and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn't. [T]his plan -- which wouldn't deliver all its benefits in the first year -- would fill only part of [the $1 trillion annual] hole [in the U.S. economy]. And it's unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

    [T]he plan would be a lot better than nothing . . .

    [I]n the end, nothing will be done until the American people demand action.

    i don't see what Obama set out last night as a jobs plan - to me it looks like Part 1 of a tax-cutting & deficit-hysteria scheme ultimately intended to weaken if not eliminate Social Security & Medicare as we know them

    & i don't think, as Krugman apparently does, that we need an "ideal world" before we can expect better of the Obama administration

    i am with Krugman, however, on the need for the American people to "demand action," & i don't see small-bore "fixes" as nearly enough action, or action of remotely the right kind

    sorry

    Parent

    A lot does have to do with one's expectations (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:07:24 PM EST
    that is my point, too

    Parent
    so Krugman (none / 0) (#65)
    by smott on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    ...Now believes that tax cuts work as stimulus?


    Parent
    Not sure, but he sounds somehat ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    ... optimistic about the hiring incentives in the plan.  In reality, however, he focuses more on GOP opposition to the plan, and says (repeatedly) it's "bolder and better than I expected".

    At this point, I'd argue that says more about Krugman's expectations of Obama than it does about the merits of the plan.

    Parent

    The view ofnthe speech (none / 0) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:09:01 PM EST
    Here is very different from what I see in the rest of the world.

    There is a disconnect.

    "There is a disconnect." (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:13:57 PM EST
    I agree. Four experts on Charlie Rose tonight thought his plan sucked more than any comments here.

    But one, a Harvard professor, thought his delivery was quite good.

    Parent

    I didn't hear the speech (none / 0) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Thu Sep 08, 2011 at 11:55:43 PM EST
    but read it in its entirety, and thought it was quite good and far better than anything I read from the GOP debate last night.

    Parent
    The delivery, I thought (none / 0) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:19:35 AM EST
    was much better than the content this time.

    Parent
    On Charlie Rose (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:36:50 PM EST
    Notation: I stopped watching Rose's show in general several years back when he served as moderator & chief advisor for summer sessions in Aspen sponsored by & associated with the principal conservatives in this country. (Other moderators for this group have included Gloria Borger, etc.)

    'Guess it depends on the individuals that Rose hosted, uh?

    Parent

    You got me! (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:49:00 PM EST
    But, I didn't mean to imply that because it was "Charlie Rose" that it automatically held the imprimatur of brilliance. In this case the host was inconsequential, it could've been a robot. The point was that four disparate experts held views that ranged from complete disappointment to luke warm endorsement of specific  bits within the proposal.

    And, btw, I have criticized Rose often here on TL, and his slide into a questioning method best described as "go along to get along," or more simply, "don't rock the boat," is both maddening and disappointing. I'm no longer a great C. Rose fan, and yet, he still draws some truly fascinating guests.

    Talk about a fantasy! Just let me be the guest host on his program for a week and I would die a happy man.


    Parent

    I'll watch that program. (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:03:09 PM EST
    ABG (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    I heard the speech, it was very good.

    Parent
    o.k. fasten your seat belt (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:36:03 AM EST
    using the Obama standard as the base, the content & delivery of his speech was better than I expected. For once he actually suggested some things that won't get past the R's, but again, for once, he seems prepared to let the R's veto them rather than him doing it for them.

    Hey, its progress.

    Parent

    I agree, he's learning (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Towanda on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:59:30 AM EST
    so at this rate, Obama may know how to at least talk like a president by 2017.  

    If he gets the chance to stay on the learning curve, of course.  

    Parent

    Probably because most people here ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    ... expect more than pretty speeches.

    Go figure.

    Parent

    I did not listen to a word he said (none / 0) (#56)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:51:01 AM EST
    He knows the GOP will vote it down which is why he feels so free to be, finally, "bold,"  whatever that is left to mean.  

    Exactly what I was going to write. (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    If he were serious about jobs, he would have tried something before re-election season.

    Parent
    An interesting doo-loop, isni't it (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    Yoiks...if the leader says what we would like/want/find ok, then something must surely be wrong...its either too late, too much, too little, etc.

    Funny.

    Parent