Image 01 Image 03

Obama “American Jobs Act” Speech In One Sentence

Obama “American Jobs Act” Speech In One Sentence

Advanced excerpts of the speech here.

Reduced to one sentence:

Been there, done that.

Post speech update (full text here):

What a horrendous event.  It truly was, a 40 minute attack on Republicans (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) with a series of straw man arguments.  This was a stump speech by someone who abused his office by commandeering our nation’s chamber and networks to launch his campaign.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Tried that. Didn’t work–again.

Scoff all you want, but word on the street says this time he’s got a mission statement.

Do we at least get dinner and a movie first this time?

    Nope. Not even a reach-around.

    White House Spokesman Jay Carney told Bill O’Reilly last night that the Obama Administration will announce how to pay for their $447 billion plan two weeks from now.

    You have to “pass the bill” to find out how they will pay the bill.

    I’ve seen this movie before.

Wow, why didn’t he take that approach before now? He could have avoided all the nasty hyperbole of the past year if he’d just unveiled the specifics of this plan then. Wait, he IS gonna give us specifics this time, isn’t he? This is not just another empty speech, is it? Had me scared there for a moment.

I still don’t understand how lowering the support of the national ponzi scheme is going to boost the economy.

    It won’t. But you have to realize we are talking about politics here, not substantive policy. Obama thinks he can sell the public on the notion that anything the Government does to put more cash in circulation will help the economy, no matter how it’s done. And, he may be right. The Republicans must show that this doesn’t work and continue proposing things that will work. And, most important, they need to explain why their proposals will help and Obama’s won’t. They are not very good at that.

Free Ponies!!!!

Jobs for everyone!!!

Pass it right away!!!

This isn’t a jobs speech, it’s a wet dream for moochers.

I was just waiting for him to say “millionaires and billionaires” so that I could turn off the set. He didn’t disappoint. I turned it off.


This speech is SO, SO, SO bad – now he’s talking about kids being exposed to mercury… rambling all over the place… buzzwords and crap.

SOTU. WTF. Winning the future.

OMG. This is so bad. It’s embarrassing.

i turned it off when he alluded to republican’s spending under the lincoln administration. and this guy was a lawyer? harvard should be ashamed of themselves.

Dare I express skepticism over the current terrorist threat? Just after the magnificent WTF speech?

    I wouldn’t, just because of the symbolism. 10 year anniversaries are big round numbers that make for good “remembrance” targets. It’s entirely likely that it’s coincidence because a reporter ran into a contact who passed it along because he/she was face to face.

Why diid I drinck at twh werd “pass”?

and ALL of these infrastructure repairs will, by law now, HAVE to be union.

Did you see the look on the faces of Joe Biden and Hilary Clinton? That confirms you one sentence summary: Booooorrrrrrrriiinnnnnggggg!

Congress is more likely to pass a kidney stone than “Stimulus III”

A campaign speech, with sound bites meant to appeal to everyone and threats to Republicans (with a couple of mild remarks intended for Democrats who don’t want anything to touch entitlement programs.)

A glutton for punishment, I am listening to Olbermann and Spitzer deconstructing the “fiery” and “well-delivered speech” appropriately showing “anger” but it “didn’t go far enough” and failed to educate the public that borrowing and spending is the way to get the economy moving, and that with interest rates this low, the “government should be borrowing” much more. “This is not a time to be cutting, but a time to be investing” (that’s code for borrowing and spending.”)

Politically, it was yet another blame everyone else, particularly Republicans. It was not much of a plan to stimulate the economy. It sounded like handing out little bits of money to part of the 2012 voters.

Queen Michelle sat with pursed lips and sour face, clapping…

    I noticed Michelle-my-belle did not look AT ALL happy to be at the speech. She looked like she was having a particularly bad night.

      BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Chuck Skinner. | September 9, 2011 at 3:29 am

      Hillary looks very troubled. Hillary is anything but stupid – I don’t think she cares about BO even about her rep is going to go down the tube. Something else is up.

The entire bill is going to be a non-starter. Over 2/3rds of the issues that Obama wants to address cannot occur without significant tax reform, which would include raising taxes on everybody, not just “the most fortunate amongst us.”

In order to bring manufacturing back to the US in any significant manner, the Government would have to eliminate all taxes on goods sold overseas that are produced in the US. That would at least tip the field back toward level.

Notice the words that were studiously avoided in this speech:
– Stimulus
– Shovel Ready
– Create or Save (in reference to jobs)
– Welfare
– Entitlement Reform (but did say “modest adjustments”)
-*- Social Security
– Millionaires & Billionaires (only said once)
– Safety net

Obama realizes he got snookered in the Debt Ceiling deal, because the new “baseline” requires that the Bush era tax cuts actually end due to budgeting rules. That’s why he had the little interlude about action to avoid raising taxes on the middle class.

The $4K tax credit is almost entirely a joke. It costs MORE than that to even begin to hire another position, even at minimum wage. If it were closer to $20K, it MIGHT approach the actual costs of hiring. Maybe.

The Payroll Tax Cut I’m waiting to see what that looks like in actual legislative format. You think that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are on shaky footing now, get ready to take away HALF of it’s income and watch that “solvent” date plummet toward the end of the THIS decade.

I think the President may have just shot himself in the foot with this speech. He just spent 40 minutes telling the American People that something had to be done NOW. When the Republicans pass something and it either gets stalled in the Senate or Vetoed by the President, the Republicans will be able to say “we passed something quickly at your specific request, and although it wasn’t what you asked for, it is what we believe is in the best interest of the Nation. You, Mr. President, didn’t like it, and now the People are suffering for your arrogance and ideology.”

The next few weeks are going to be very interesting to watch the “negotiations” that take place. I sincerely hope that Boehner can improve on the spine he’s been showing lately, weak though it has been. Tea Partiers need to stand their ground, and loudly call out any RINOs that buckle.

Be interesting to see how much of a bump this gives to Obama in the polls.

    tomesnyder in reply to JEBurke. | September 8, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    US stock futures went down after the speech.

    My guess is that it will be none. I expect no bump out of this speech. It wasn’t a bold, new direction. It was more of the same ideas that we’ve seen for 3 years straight, just with different words.

    The people are starting to see through the facade to the cracks in the foundations of Obama’s thinking.

JE Burke – want a small side wager that his standing in the polls will go down as a result of the speech? (At least in the semi-honest polls.)

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm

I didn’t watch. I just can’t tolerate listening to my own president anymore. I’ve never felt that way about any other president in my life. It’s really sad.

Anyway, you’re probably seen it but the top thread at Memeorandum is from the AP who rips him for three pretty hefty lies. More to follow, I’m sure.

When the Republicans pass something and it either gets stalled in the Senate…

This is an interesting thought.

bob aka either orr | September 8, 2011 at 9:57 pm

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Fascinating… the state-controlled AP torpedoes Obama’s claims… Another crack in the wall.

I feel deep sorrow for those too young to acquire wealth and for those too old to acquire enough wealth to survive the impending collapse; neither can afford the cost of funding a cruel and deceptive lie.

Pitiful, the youth will be pillaged by the elders while the elders won’t have enough youth to survive; cursed.

It’s like standing on an American ship called Debt watching as parents and grandparents throw their children and grandchildren overboard in the hope of easing their own heavy load.

I’ve aready spend tens of thousand attempting to end this madness with not much return, I’m about ready to buy my lifeboat and sail away; it is getting to the point where it is too painful to stay and watch America sink into a hospice nation tending to its demise.

I just got in from a business meeting and, though I had no intention of listening to this man if I had been home, my first stop to get any feedback on his joint session campaign speech was here at LI. THANKS for such a clear and insightful critique. I am going to begin calling you Professor Reductase. 🙂

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

J. Wellington Wimpy (D-Chicago)

Here’s the best analysis of the speech I’ve seen thus far…

Obama seems to have an obsession with taxing those already paying the most. He should seek professional help.

In less than 3 years the federal government alone has spent approximately $12 trillion, of which approximately $5 trillion is sourced from debt sales. Now he proposes spending less than $500 billion to improve employment and presumably the larger economy?

According to “”, of our $14.9 trillion GDP, $7 trillion is spent by the federal, state, and local governments.

Someone is lying. They have offered no reason to trust either their judgment or benevolence.

From what I read, he proposes nothing to remove the obstacles from domestic resource recovery and energy production. This means that capital investments will continue to be progressively priced, the economy will continue to shrink, and private capital (e.g., savings) will continue to diminish. It also means that we will continue to be engaged in foreign lands, and subject to foreign interests, in order to protect energy and resource investments.

I can see Weimar from my window. I don’t look forward to what follows.

Concluding Notes on the Social Philosophy Towards which the General Theory Might Lead –

Thus, apart from the necessity of central controls to bring about an adjustment between the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, there is no more reason to socialise economic life than there was before.

It is in determining the volume, not the direction, of actual employment that the existing system has broken down.

The advantage to efficiency of the decentralisation of decisions and of individual responsibility is even greater, perhaps, than the nineteenth century supposed; and the reaction against the appeal to self-interest may have gone too far. But, above all, individualism, if it can be purged of its defects and its abuses, is the best safeguard of personal liberty in the sense that, compared with any other system, it greatly widens the field for the exercise of personal choice. It is also the best safeguard of the variety of life, which emerges precisely from this extended field of personal choice, and the loss of which is the greatest of all the losses of the homogeneous or totalitarian state.

The authoritarian state systems of to-day seem to solve the problem of unemployment at the expense of efficiency and of freedom. It is certain that the world will not much longer tolerate the unemployment which, apart from brief intervals of excitement, is associated — and, in my opinion, inevitably associated — with present-day capitalistic individualism. But it may be possible by a right analysis of the problem to cure the disease whilst preserving efficiency and freedom.

But if nations can learn to provide themselves with full employment by their domestic policy (and, we must add, if they can also attain equilibrium in the trend of their population), there need be no important economic forces calculated to set the interest of one country against that of its neighbours. There would still be room for the international division of labour and for international lending in appropriate conditions. But there would no longer be a pressing motive why one country need force its wares on another or repulse the offerings of its neighbour, not because this was necessary to enable it to pay for what it wished to purchase, but with the express object of upsetting the equilibrium of payments so as to develop a balance of trade in its own favour. International trade would cease to be what it is, namely, a desperate expedient to maintain employment at home by forcing sales on foreign markets and restricting purchases, which, if successful, will merely shift the problem of unemployment to the neighbour which is worsted in the struggle, but a willing and unimpeded exchange of goods and services in conditions of mutual advantage.

The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money – John Maynard Keynes

This discussion should begin with the principal principle, “individual dignity.” It should continue with a review of the measures by which totalitarian policies have been substituted for the conveyance and acceptance of moral knowledge. It is acknowledge that compromise of individual dignity is inevitable and necessary for the establishment and development of society. Any compromises induced by a government with a granted authority cannot be taken lightly and without an informed consensus of the people it serves.

A nation, at minimum, is an administrative district, and, if it is to be successful and provided for its citizens, must convert on the natural and human resources which populate its land. At the most, it is an encapsulation of a new race, defined by “any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.”.

It is desirable to acknowledge that legal immigration, when nearly 10% of the population is unemployed, an additional 20% is long-term unemployed or underemployed, and nearly 50% are subsidized through taxpayer subsidies, is unreasonable. It must be acknowledged that illegal immigration, that is, unmeasured immigration, under the same circumstances is unconscionable. Not only do immigrants displace American men, women, and children; but, they also necessarily increase the incidence of involuntary exploitation (including murder, rape, etc.). A selective rule of law undermines the perception of the legitimacy of a governing body or ruling authority.

On a related note, we should acknowledge the conditions which would drive a million aliens to leave their homes and risk their lives to reach another nation. This is indicative and, in fact, confirms that the corruption of societies in Hispanic, African, Asian, etc. nations is progressive and intolerable. It does not help anyone to merely shift the problem from one district to another, whereby the underlying causal factors are ignored, or worse, are exploited by foreign and domestic competing interests, including those with a granted authority (principally government).

The government should act to enable the conditions where entrepreneurs thrive, whereby they establish and develop businesses, which will provide for the employment of managers and workers, and the wealth from which government derives funding for its activities, compensation for its civil servants, and financing of its “expenses”.

We should help individuals who falter, with limited, targeted, and accountable assistance, where the individual is engaged in their own recovery. As a society, we must decide how to cope with individuals who choose to fail (e.g., criminals).

We need to review policies (e.g., welfare), which are causal factors in corruption of individuals and society, and sabotage character development of individuals. The current system contributes to corruption of both the beneficiary and the provider.

We must end institutionally honored denigration of individual dignity (e.g., discrimination by incidental features), progressive involuntary exploitation (i.e., redistributive change), and devaluation of human life (e.g., abortion). We must avoid condemning people merely based on the color of their skin, gender, etc.

For example, it is utterly insane to teach young boys that males are predisposed to the involuntary exploitation of females. The evidence does not support that conclusion, and their dignity cannot be preserved with that deceptive message. The same is true when whole classes of people (typically identified by their “skin color”) are condemned as prejudiced, bigoted, etc.). The only minority of consequence is the individual. Anything else is, by definition, prejudiced and demonstrably false.

We must stop manufacturing obstacles for entrepreneurs and punishing responsible individuals. We should be good stewards of our society, the environment, etc.; but, we cannot submit to extreme or fanatical interests that sabotage our development.

It is imperative that the government act responsibly and facilitate domestic resource recovery and energy production. This is the foundation of an economy, and it will precede the reduced cost of capital investments across the board while increasing efficiency of converting on both natural and human capital.

As for the marginal value of debt accumulation:

Labor Day Musings

Review the “Debt and GDP Change” graph. If it is correct, then there has been no material return on the accumulation of debt (since the 1950s) by the federal government. If anything, the expansion of the virtual economy precedes a decline in the real economy. This would suggest that Keynes’s criteria of “it may be possible by a right analysis of the problem to cure the disease whilst preserving efficiency and freedom” has not been met by our overseers.

The reason, I believe, that centralization is failing in America, as it has and will fail everywhere else, is that is is predicated on a competing interests (e.g., individuals, cooperatives) moderating their interests. This cannot be achieved in a society which promotes totalitarian principles above moral knowledge. The latter of which is a prerequisite for self-moderating behavior, which is impossible with the normalization of denigrating individual dignity and devaluation of human life.

As Keyne’s observed, the market (i.e., individual competing interests) is the superior economic (i.e., capitalism) and political system (i.e., Democracy), for the simple reason that through adaptation, and evolution, it optimizes the preservation of individual dignity. However, as he noted, it requires oversight in order to accomodate individuals who are corrupt and neligent. Still, who can be trusted with that oversight, and who provides oversight of the overseers? All people are vulnerable to the causal factors which lead to their corruption.

BannedbytheGuardian | September 9, 2011 at 3:21 am

Perhaps the speech could have been enlivened by those amazing dancers with Petula Clarke. Those moves!

Thanks Prof for those Petula vids. Those songs are very difficult to sing . Of course she was a professional singer in Franc before her Brit fame & is still singing in France today. She was & is a lady no one messes with.

Sign of the times -good catch.

Senate approves increasing debt ceiling to 101% of US GDP.

A Senate resolution to disapprove the $500 billion debt ceiling increase proposed by Mitch McConnell was voted down 45 to 52 effectively green-lighting the increase of the US debt ceiling from the current $14.694 to $15.194 trillion, or roughly 101% of GDP.

As I said above, this is politics, pure and simple. Obama is trying to trap the Republicans into saying no, no, hell no, then blaming them for all his economic problems because they said no.

I saw Eric Cantor on Fox a little while ago. It looks like the Republicans are not taking Obama’s bait. Cantor was conciliatory, saying there are some things the President proposes that Republicans would be willing to work with him on, but that other things are not acceptable. He said he and Boehner want to work with Obama on some things that both can agree on, like regulatory pullbacks, but the President cannot take an “all or nothing” approach.

I think Obama has no interest in working with Republicans on this at all. He is just playing a political game. Thus, Cantor is calling Obama’s bluff and raising him one. If the President attacks the Republicans for doing nothing, Cantor, et al, will respond that they have been trying to get together with Obama to work something out, but he has not responded. All in all, it’s a good move by the Republicans. It preserves all their options and puts Obama in a box. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

On a substantive level, none of this will help anything and may do some harm, but not very much.

I tried to watch and listen. I really did. But my “patriotism” flagged. So sad. Apologies to Mizz Nancy.

The predictable rhythm of of Obama’s verbal flatulence had me dozing off in less than 5 minutes. He referred to his “plan” as an “Act.” Does that mean he actually has placed a written document in detail before Congress? Rounded up sponsors, etc.? For votes up or down? Or was it just a weasel word means to cloak a stump speech?

Great nap before the football game however. Thanks.

Way to go Green Bay!!

[…] I plan on listening to Tammy Bruce’s Mystery Science Theater 3000 podcast. However, it seems that Professor Jacobson has distilled Obama’s campaign-oriented rhetoric down to its essence: Been there, done that. […]

“It truly was, a 40 minute attack on Republicans (sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly) with a series of straw man arguments.”

You have to understand he hates us all. He would raid us like he did Gibson Guitary if he could. Our main crime is that we willfully will not see or acknowledge how wonderdul he is.

WARNING! Toxic Dose of Irony. Obama’s “historic” speech lacked the word “energy”, while millions of Californians went without power last night during an “unprecedented” blackout and could not hear his speech.

[…] -William Jacobson: …This was a stump speech by someone who abused his office by commandeering our nation’s chamber and networks to launch his campaign. […]