Obama’s “Big” Jobs Speech…FAIL


Did you hear Obama gave a speech last night? If you didn’t here is the summary…Infrastructure spending, bailouts to states to save government jobs, bailouts for mortgages, job training, unspecified regulatory reform, and some small tax credits for businesses and individuals.

Sound familiar?

It should. Its the 2009 Recovery Act Part II and not once did he acknowledge what a total and complete failure that was.

In 2009, President Obama promised that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would “create or save” 3.5 million jobs over the next two years and that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8.5 percent. Rather, he said that, by the end of 2010, unemployment would have dropped to 7.25 percent. Furthermore, White House economists forecast that without ARRA spending, the unemployment rate would increase from 7 percent to 8.8 percent. Unfortunately, the administration’s estimates were wrong by a vast margin.

This week, Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy compares unemployment estimates from the president’s 2010 Budget—which contains the original proposed estimates for the impact of the stimulus on unemployment—with actual unemployment rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

While the cost of ARRA has risen to $840 billion—from the original $787 billion signed in 2009—the data reveal no marked improvement in employment as stimulus spending has increased. The large disparity between what the president promised and of the current unemployment levels contradicts the original claims about ARRA’s ability to improve unemployment conditions.

It failed so miserably so why not try it again eh?

“basically the [same ideas] I’ve been advocating for months.”

So the class warfare remains, tax hikes on business owners remain, bailouts remain….all to be paid for by a plan he will come up with later. Come on.

The whole tone of the speech was entirely political. It was an election speech and the country is tired of his speeches in which he ORDERS Washington to either pass it or he will tell Mommy and Daddy (the American people) and force them to accept it.

Rick Perry:

President Obama’s call for nearly a half-trillion dollars in more government stimulus when America has more than $14 trillion in debt is guided by his mistaken belief that we can spend our way to prosperity.

Like the president’s earlier $800 billion stimulus program, this proposal offers little hope for millions of Americans who have lost jobs on his watch, and taxpayers who are rightly concerned that their children will inherit a mountain of debt.

America needs jobs, smaller government, less spending and a president with the courage to offer more than yet another speech.

Herman Cain:

We waited 30 months for this?

And Romney:


Given all that, some of his ideas such as tax credits are good and Republicans will pass the good ideas while keeping those horrible ideas, that didn’t work two years ago and won’t work now, on the shelf. They will not be ordered around as if the man was King.

GOP leaders are planning to pick the most passable items out of the bill — trade agreements, small business relief measures, revamped unemployment insurance — and pass them separately.

“This is my objection to the message that was delivered tonight,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the speech. “The message was: either accept my package as it is, or I will take it to the American people. I would say that that’s the wrong approach. What we’re here to do is try to transcend differences, not let them get in the way in the areas we can make progress on.”

Cantor added that “as majority leader, I certainly would like to see us be able to peel off some of these ideas, put them on the floor, vote them across the floor and get the senate to join with us so we can actually get something to the president and make some progress as quickly as possible.”

At least there are still some adults in the room.

More here

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Did you catch the split second when he pounded the lectern Mussolini style? As soon as I get some free time this weekend, I’m mounting and intertubes search to isolate and conflate it with Il Duce … or maybe Dwight Schrute.

“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

Today’s stock market dump is being blamed mainly on “European worries” but you have to know Americans will tie it to Obama’s speech. His request for money to spend today which will be paid for some other day has become all too familiar. The only surprising thing is how slowly Obama’s poll numbers are deteriorating. I would think he would be sinking like a stone by now. Perhaps there’s a kind of Bradley effect taking place there. How else to explain the race in NY-9? People continue to say they like Obama or somewhat approve of his performance in an affirmative action kind of way. “What, me racist?” When it comes time to vote, Democrats may get a shock if they run this statist again.

“You must pass this bill…” What bill? Where are the details? Oh, and he’ll get back with us in ten days with more details on how to pay for Porkulus II. Just another blowhard political speech. Our dear esteemed senior senator here in Louisiana has already come out stating that we need to get this passed because the all knowing One has deemed it necessary. How can anyone say anything intelligent or pertinent about a bill that no one has seen? Maybe we should pass this bill so we can see what’s in it? It’s time to finish cleaning out the trash in Washington folks!

This was before the speech but a radio show played portions of a conference call Mr. Steve Wynn, Casino Magnate and lifelong democrat, had with investors. If that call could be posted for other democrats to listen to, maybe some will open their eyes and realize Obama is not being ridiculed just because he is a democrat.


You could do Kruschev too. 😉

I’ve noticed that whenever obama gives a speech the stockmarket finishes down. Knew I should have sold some stock.

I have a car to sell you TODAY. You must sign the paperwork right now; the deal will no longer be good in a couple of hours. Can I show you the car? Not quite yet, it is still in the shop. But it is a wonderful car. It has been very well taken care of. No body damage. Sound power train. Excellent upholstery. Runs like a dream. Just sign here. You must sign right now; the deal expires shortly.
Can I see the car?
No, I told you it is still being prepared. But it is a creampuff.
The clock is ticking down; in a few minutes I will offer the same deal to another customer, who will undoubtedly snap up this amazing deal.
What kind of warranty do I get? I told you the car is a creampuff, you won’t need a warranty, it is in top shape, never been abused, ready to go right now.
Just sign here. Please. You only have a couple more minutes, and the deal is off.
My time is valuable, and there are other customers waiting for this same car.

Would you REALLY buy a used economy from this dude?
He is so pathetically gormless. What a waste of sperm and egg.
King Putt should go back to the golf course. We will call him when it is time to swear in someone else.
He has failed.


Europe’s financial market issues cost their own markets to drop ~ 1%.
If our markets only end up 1% down today they will have to rise quite a bit.
They are all down over 2&1/2% currently.
In fact the European futures are going down (again) now in line with our American markets.

Meet the new plan

Same as the old plan

I know that you guys don’t consider David Brooks to be a “true” conservative. But he’s certainly not a Marxist.

Having respect for copyright, I don’t generally post long quotations, but this NYT column doesn’t link directly (you need to enter a NYT user id and password). So I hope that I won’t get anyone in trouble with the following long quotation. I’d really be interested to see how the thoughtful people on this blog would critique this particular take on Obama’s proposals:


Stimulus for Skeptics

Published: September 8, 2011

A few years ago, Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen M. Reinhart wrote the definitive guide to the current economic downturn, a book called “This Time Is Different.” Rogoff and Reinhart studied data from eight centuries of financial crises. They found that banking-crisis recessions are worse than normal recessions. They last longer.

The general lesson I take from this history is that policy makers stuck in a financial recession should probably think about the long term. You’re going to be stuck with a lousy economy anyway. Anything you do to try to boost the growth numbers next month or next quarter is going to be overwhelmed by the underlying forces — the continuing housing overhang, the gradual deleveraging process, the lingering mood of fear and anxiety.

You might as well use the winter of recuperation to take care of the fundamentals. Work hard to fix the education system, the tax code, the fiscal mess and the regulatory system. None of these things will produce short-term benefits. But when the recession finally does run its course, the economy will be ready to surge. Paradoxically, you have more power to influence these fundamental issues than you do next month’s jobs report.

There’s only one problem with this long-term orientation. Suppose in the middle of the winter of recuperation the economy stops recuperating? Suppose instead of grinding forward, the economy starts sliding back? In these circumstances, do you still have the luxury of thinking about the long term? Don’t you have to try to reverse things here and now?

This is the problem the Obama administration is facing. Like everybody else, it has seen a sluggish economy come grinding to a halt. There is clearly now a significant risk of a double-dip recession. That would be terrible for America’s workers, fiscal situation and psyche. This prospect is enough to shock even us stimulus skeptics out of our long-term focus. It’s enough to force us to contemplate the possibility of another stimulus package.

The next question is this: Does the administration have any stimulus ideas that could actually stimulate? Thursday night the president gave one of the most forceful and compelling domestic policy speeches of his presidency. His proposals were drawn from the middle of the ideological spectrum and were selected to appeal to people who don’t put a lot of faith in government spending. There’s a payroll tax cut, a small business tax cut, infrastructure spending, subsidies so states don’t have to lay off cops, firefighters and teachers, and a plan to use unemployment insurance to subsidize temporary work for the unemployed to get them back involved in the labor force.

Republicans have supported most of these ideas at one time or another. Still, let’s not sugarcoat things. Recent stimulus packages have not exactly lived up to the hype. Temporary tax cuts generally don’t lead to much job creation. Given the long lead times involved, infrastructure spending is an odd way to combat a double dip that might be starting right now. Job subsidies often go to companies that would have hired the people anyway. One recent study showed that a plurality of the people hired under the last stimulus package already had jobs; they were just switching from one to another.

In short, the administration is putting forth a package to prevent a double-dip recession that may not come to pass with a series of measures that may not work.

Yet it’s hard to walk away. The prospect of a double dip is truly horrifying. What happens if next months job’s report comes in negative? Or the one after that? Believe me, Congress will be rushing to do something then.

Personally, my bottom line is this: I think the president has earned a second date. He’s put together a moderate set of stimulus ideas. His plan may not be enough to jolt prosperity, but it might maintain its current slow growth.

If he comes up with his own deficit proposal that pays for his programs with some serious entitlement reforms (and not merely with some boilerplate “let’s tax the rich” plan), then Republicans would be wise to work with him to make his growth ideas more effective.

The mainstream economic view is that we should combine near-term stimulus with long-range austerity. Up until now, the political system has been unable to perform this two-stage approach. Republicans won’t touch spending, and Democrats won’t touch entitlement reform.

The president clearly wants to give it a final shot. His tone on Thursday was feisty and will please Democrats. But the substance was heterodox and worth pursuing. In this moment of peril, the country needs an insurance policy against the double dip.


I just found a bunch of charts designed to make Obama’s economic policy decisions after taking office (w/regards this recession)look good.
What they do is include the Great Depression among the four lines.
The thick red line represents the current recession;
the thin blue line, the postwar average;
the thick green line, the Great Depression; and
the thin gold line, the prewar average.

Too bad the same chart essay has 15 previous charts showing Obama’s economic policy decisions after taking office (w/regards this recession) compared only with the average of all post–World War II recessions (in blue).

CFR: Quarterly Update: The Economic Downturn in Historical Context

(The cycle charts above plotted the downturn as well as the recovery.)

There is another quarterly Update with charts starting only at the point when the recession ”ended” in June 2009.

Did you hear Obama gave a speech last night? If you didn’t here is the summary…Infrastructure spending, bailouts to states to save government jobs, bailouts for mortgages, job training, unspecified regulatory reform, and some small tax credits for businesses and individuals.

Sound familiar?

It should. Its the 2009 Recovery Act Part II and not once did he acknowledge what a total and complete failure that was.

WaPo Fact Checker:

So here’s a pop quiz. Which of the following quotes came from the 2009 speech, and which quotes came from the speech this week?

1. “More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector — jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.”

2. “It will lead to new jobs for construction workers, teachers, veterans, first responders, young people and the long-term unemployed.”

3. “It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values — Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who refinances today can save nearly $2,000 per year on their mortgage.”

4. “We’re going to work with federal housing agencies to help more people refinance their mortgages at interest rates that are now near 4 percent — a step that can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket, and give a lift to an economy still burdened by the drop in housing prices.”

5. “Ask yourselves — where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways and our bridges; our dams and our airports? What would this country be like if we had chosen not to spend money on public high schools, or research universities, or community colleges? Millions of returning heroes, including my grandfather, had the opportunity to go to school because of the GI Bill. Where would we be if they hadn’t had that chance?”

6. “History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.”

7. “It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings.”

8. “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”

9. “The only way to fully restore America’s economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world.”

10. “If we provide the right incentives and support — and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules — we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that are sold all over the world.”

11. “To preserve our long-term fiscal health, we must also address the growing costs in Medicare and Social Security.”

12. “But with an aging population and rising health care costs, we are spending too fast to sustain the program. And if we don’t gradually reform the system while protecting current beneficiaries, it won’t be there when future retirees need it. We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.”



You might as well use the winter of recuperation to take care of the fundamentals.

Or as Rahm Emmanuel would say, “Never let a crisis go to waste”.

What Brooks points out is that “banking-crisis recessions are different than normal recessions.”

Typically, housing takes the lead in recession recovery. The problem was that the (rather anemic) economic growth of the 2001-2007 period was largely the result of consumer spending, driven by consumer debt — a lot of it from mortgage re-fis, to borrow money to finance consumer spending.

With the housing crash and the backlog of foreclosures, it’s going to be years before the housing sector recovers and there is no ready source of consumer capital. Blaming Obama for these conditions may be politically expedient, but it’s not economically honest.

Proving a negative (i.e. what would have happened without the stimulus?) is impossible.

I’ve previously posted a handy link to the 9 major studies which addressed the issue:

Did the stimulus work?

Here it is, again:


– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach

@Nan G:

On this particular set of charts, the zero month is the first month of the recession–that is, December 2007. This means that on each of the charts, Barack Obama took office between the 12 and 16 points–specifically, during month 13.

One the charts from this same source linked elsewhere, the zero month corresponds to the last month of the recession–technically, 06/2009.

What bill? Again, we have to wait to see the devil in the details, but decide it should “pass” long before reading it.

Searching GovTrack for titles and content INRE “American Jobs”, there’s 21 titles related in the current Congressional session alone.

There’s some things in the speech (not the legislation, which no one has seen) that I believe both GOP and Dems may agree upon. But it will come down to quarreling over the price for that agreement. Again, it will be yet another extension of unemployment benefits, which have already been extended until Jan of 2012…. so how much longer?

Dunno… devil in the details.

Again there is a bailout of paying State payrolls on their behalf, instead of forcing them into budgetary constraints, as many states are doing. More can kicking. No good. But that will be another “price” that will have to be paid.

35,000 schools in the nation are falling down around kids’ ears? Why do I find that hard to believe. There was such a small pittance of the original ARRA that went to viable construction and infrastructure, why should I believe that magically they have discovered true needs?

Or are there more Obama Enrons (i.e. Solyndra LLC) stashed in the mix?

Another thing about that infrastructure. We were sold that bill of goods once, and yet three times the ARRA money was funneled to the HHS for health care related grants, loans and sundry expenditures. That would, of course, be money that was a perk a’top the later passed O’healthcare, that funneled even more money to that agency.

I believe nothing. I can’t say there aren’t things I wouldn’t support in this, nor can I say it’s a workable compromise that may have an effect… because, as usual, we haven’t got a damn thing but words and rhetoric to look at.

But of course, it should be passed “now”…. /sarc

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I read the Brooks piece and it seems as if he is giving Obama an out by stating that no matter what he does, the banking recession will continue.

In other words, give Obama a pass, it’s Bush’s fault.

And you are right, Larry. Brooks is no conservative.

@Larry: With the housing crash and the backlog of foreclosures, it’s going to be years before the housing sector recovers and there is no ready source of consumer capital. Blaming Obama for these conditions may be politically expedient, but it’s not economically honest.

Glad to see that you’ve finally seen the light on the deplorable status of the housing crash, Larry. Not that I celebrate that reality, but that I have accepted it’s finality as something which with we must deal. If you, as you say, are sitting in one of those pockets with lesser damage, than I am happy for your selective good fortune. It is not, however, indicative of national trends. And this doesn’t even bring into play the inventory, shadow inventory, and foreclosure trends that still bode ill.

In short, there will be no economic recovery without a housing market also recovering. And that event was in the making during the 90s, tho I doubt you will ever admit that. However the astronomical rise in the property values began in 1998 just for that reasoning.

My largest problem with the O’bungling INRE housing is that the recovery has been deliberately delayed by repeated attempts to reinflate the bubble. This smacks of distinct political intent, as no one wants to be the admin in charge when we have to eat our cold peas at the table for discipline, so to speak. Instead, the measures attempted by the Fed Reserve, this admin and his Treasury Dept has served only to exacerbate the problem.

House Republican leaders have sent President Obama a letter requesting a non-speech version of the “jobs plan” he outlined before Congress on Thursday. They intend to have the written legislation scored by the Congressional Budget Office. Because as CBO officials have previously made clear, they “don’t estimate speeches.”
Full text of the letter:

September 9, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for your address to a Joint Session of the Congress last night, and for presenting your ideas. We believe creating long-term, sustainable jobs must be the top priority for elected leaders of both parties, and it is our desire to work with you to find common ground on steps that can be taken to allow our economy to grow and to create those jobs. While we have a different vision in terms of what is needed to boost private-sector job creation in our country, we believe your ideas merit consideration by the Congress, and believe the American people expect them to be given such consideration.

We look forward to receiving legislative text for any of your ideas in a manner that can be scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and to the upcoming speech you described last night in which you will detail the offsets that will be needed to ensure your proposals are paid for.

The House and our committees will immediately begin the process of reviewing and considering your proposals. We will examine the impact of your proposals on both short and long term economic growth and we will identify modifications and additional ideas that could achieve economic and job growth in a manner that may be more impactful or effective. For instance, these ideas could include elements of the multiple bills passed by the House earlier this year to remove government barriers to private-sector job creation that are currently awaiting action in the Senate. In addition, the House will continue with the jobs agenda outlined last month which among other things would provide relief to our nation’s job creators – especially small businesses – from the high costs of some of your Administration’s pending regulatory actions

As we are certain your advisors have told you, not all your ideas should be packaged in a single legislative vehicle. For instance, due to the structure of Trade Promotion Authority procedures, passage of the free trade agreements with our allies – Colombia, Panama and South Korea – is better achieved moving as stand-alone legislation. We again ask that you send those agreements immediately to the Congress for our consideration and approval.

We share your desire for bipartisan cooperation, and assume that your ideas were not presented as an all-or-nothing proposition, but rather in anticipation that the Congress may also have equally as effective proposals to offer for consideration. The American people expect us to bring together the best of both parties’ ideas, and it is our desire to work together to find common ground between your ideas and ours. The House is committed to working with our Senate colleagues and your administration to confront our nation’s economic and employment challenges.


What do you think?

I just cannot believe that none of the comments here, nor any speeches by republican candidates, have stated the obvious:

A) S&P warned THIS PRESIDENT that continued deficit spending would result in an American credit rating downgrade.
Obama called their bluff.
So S&P downgraded our credit rating.
B) Obama responded last night with “We didn’t go far enough! We need to spend another $450 Billion.”

Why is this moron not getting pelted by republicans for this?
Why was this not the republican response? (They declined to respond).


Can’s say as I disagree, Nostradamus… but let me remind you that it’s a bit premature to say it isn’t “paid for” since no one has seen this magic cure-all bill yet. As the CBO said, and Nan G reiterated, you can’t “score” speeches. Only legislation.

Until the bill shows up… hopefully sooner than the trade agreements Obama’s never sent on, but is mad that haven’t been passed… any criticism is only of the speech, and not the legislation. Patience, grasshopper.

INRE the GOP response… I loved it that they didn’t bother. Considering it was going to be just words, and no bill at the moment, why take people away from the NFL? Personally, I’d say the WH was probably royally PO’ed that they were reduced to lousy pre’game entertainment, and not even worthy of responding to officially.

Bachmann did herself no favors by trying to do so. Instead, she just appeared to be politically desperate for campaign attention that she has been losing to Perry. That’s really too bad. Didn’t even make the cable news, save for a few excerpted lines. More damage than good.

M-Harley: Agreed. But I think there are two ways for conservative representatives (and POTUS candidates) to respond to this latest Executive Branch outrage.
1) Just throw your hands up and say “Okay, we won’t stop you. You OWN IT and your presidency will stand or fall on it” or, (Because that, in and of itself would signal irresponsibility on our part…we KNOW it will fail) ….declare:

2) We Republicans like ALL OF THOSE POINTS in your “Jobs Bill”, but the candy store is closed. There’s no more candy to hand out. We need to see…SPECIFICALLY…on a line-by-line basis…EXACTLY HOW each point will be paid for without increasing the deficit spending and thus the National Debt.”

I say this because it is clear to me that Obama’s strategy is to try and brand republicans as “Mean, Mean and Meaner” should they DARE to not support any point that Obama outlined.

It’s time for this BULLSHIT to stop, and for America to have a serious debate about A) What we want and B) What we can afford.

I remember a simple definition of the word “Economics” that my West Point Foreign Affairs Officer told us:

“Economics has nothing to do with money, or any other currency. ECONOMICS is simply “Mans desire to achieve his unlimited WANTS, utilizing his LIMITED MEANS.”

Liberals are great at selling the first point. Conservatives are LOATH to explain the latter point.
That’s why we lose these debates in the media.

@Hard Right: It Looked to me that he did everything to resemble the former Soviet Premier except take his shoe off and pound it on the podium. He yelled “pass the bill” instead of “we will bury you”.

Rarely have we seen such a pathetic address to Congress. It was infantile. What was Obama doing? Throwing a tantrum? Playing to an uneducated crowd?

And job creation? Keynesian ghosts still haunt the first $835 billlion stimulus which produced nothing of enduring sustenance, but did so much to increase the debt load our grandchildren will enjoy so much – so another $445 billion will work now? Not a chance.

Obama is buying his base’s vote with extending Unemployment Insurance. In “base” I include the bleeding heart wealthy liberals who don’t understand basic human motivation, nor analysis results on the consequence of long term unemployment insurance. History dictates that this will guarantee a significant reduction of “incentive” for returning to work. The whole system understands that this affects the actions of many on the unemployment ranks. Not all, but many. Continuing an extension of the UI rolls will impact productivity negatively, and further institutionalize enormous numbers of people into the entitlement mindset.

Obama is history’s first entitlement President. His refrain obviously lands on enough willing and receptive ears. We can expect him to go down in history as the leader of the entitlement generation.

He should have come up with a radical, even extreme Jobs Creation program. He should have taken a risk with dramatic incentive for entrepreneurs. His tax incentive is a meagre, spineless, measure. In a good economy, it might have been worth a read. In these dire circumstances, it’s a disaster. He has no idea how to create a single job other than through government hiring.

I just can’t wait until he creates one job opening – his, when he loses in 2012!

Has anyone mentioned that, during his jobs speech, Obama falsely claimed that Abraham Lincoln founded the Republican Party?

Politico in 2008 got it right.
Even Wikipedia got it right.
Wiki cited:
Gould, Lewis (2003). Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans.
Gienapp, W (1989). The Origins of the Republican Party.

I wonder what kind of ”history” books fill the shelves in the White House?

@Nan G:

I always thought this was a very funny “quote”:

“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine.” -Abraham Lincoln

I think those construction jobs are for the UNION, THE Y SURELY WON’T LET ANY OTHER DO IT,

Hi Mata,

My largest problem with the O’bungling INRE housing is that the recovery has been deliberately delayed by repeated attempts to reinflate the bubble.

When you first made this point, some time ago, I confess that I didn’t see it in quite this way. I frankly thought that the housing downturn was going to be a temporary thing. But the number of foreclosures continued to mount at a pace which (I think) exceeded even the more pessimistic projections. Anyway, I now concede that you were correct — in particular that the temporary tax credit did have the effect of temporarily stabilizing prices (or reducing the rate of decline), at the expense of merely postponing the day of reckoning.

So, yeah, that turned out to be a bad idea.

P.S. Hi Nan; With respect to the so-called “gaffe,” about Abraham Lincoln allegedly founding the Republican Party, the thing that you’ll see (on conservative blogs) which simply isn’t true concerns PBS allegedly “covering” for Obama by changing the wording of that section of the speech. This isn’t true; right before such speeches the major news media are given verbatim transcripts of what goes on the teleprompters (or lectern notes). This is the verbatim transcript which PBS published.

What obviously happened is that Obama either lost his place while reading the teleprompter or else just made an effort to go “off teleprompter” and made a relatively minor mistake. He said that Lincoln “founded the Republican Party” as opposed to being the “first Republican President.” His point was simply that Lincoln actually espoused some of the Hamiltonian “big government” principles which were also espoused by later Republican Presidents, from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt to Richard Nixon, and which have only very recently become anathema within today’s GOP circles.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I thank you humbly for your acknowledge of prior misjudgment, Larry.


What bill? Again, we have to wait to see the devil in the details, but decide it should “pass” long before reading it.

¨We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.”

Someone called this stimulus bill Groundhog Day II. That is fitting, since it is the same thing over and over and over…. How does that old saying go?  “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Fool me thrice, I should be overtaxed, over regulated, and loose all of my freedoms.”

Hi, Larry.
I hadn’t seen anything about PBS anywhere.
But I was re-watching the whole thing after hubby got home ….and HE caught it.
Then I found the soundbite on a video search.
But as you pointed out, Obama went off-script.
That’s a dangerous thing to do when you are as ignorant about History as Obama.
Even his inner circle are no help.
This video shows that Obama’s old helper could not have helped Obama get it right back when they BOTH were calling Abe Lincoln’s TRANScontinental railroad the ”INTERcontinental railroad.”

3 Times, Obama?
Well, seeing Axelrod say it, too, means Obama thought he knew a ”fact” when he only knew a revisionist history tidbit.
And no properly educated one who both respected was close enough to them to correct the both of them.

Edited to add:
Someone at the White House knew better….
Jay Carney wrote this:

He gives a good speech, but he’s loose with the facts. He called Abraham Lincoln the “founder” of the Republican Party. Nope. Lincoln was not the founder of the party; he wasn’t even the first Republican nominee (John Fremont was, in 1856). Lincoln was, of course, the first Republican to be elected president.

Read more:

Huckabee Errata

Carney was writing this about Gov. Huckabee in 2008.

@ Larry

There’s only one problem with this long-term orientation. Suppose in the middle of the winter of recuperation the economy stops recuperating? Suppose instead of grinding forward, the economy starts sliding back? In these circumstances, do you still have the luxury of thinking about the long term? Don’t you have to try to reverse things here and now?

I think I’d have to ask myself why the winter of recuperation stopped recuperating. I’m probably expecting too much though. Could it be that companies are afraid to invest in anything for fear of the next round of regulations by the Obama Administration? There may be a company out there right now ready to open a new plant in a right to work State, but they know the NLRB is going to take them to court. Or a company getting ready for the next generation technology business in fear of what the EPA will do. Or a company has decided that they just don’t want to hire anyone else because of the paperwork they need to track for Obamacare. Probably has nothing to do with the roadblock on the path to the winter of recuperation.

By the way Larry, congrats on the latest departure from California. Seems the Affiliate-Nexus Tax is having more of an impact than expected. I for one am shocked.


On that Affiliate-Nexus Tax….
It has been pushed back a year here in CA.
The federal gov’t might take up the idea nationally, however.
CA was hoping to collect $200 million a year from Amazon, Overstock.com, Savings.com and others that are packing up and leaving instead.
Not one business signed up to pay the new tax….not one!
So CA gave them another year to decide.
More time to vote with their feet.

@Hard Right

I’ve noticed that whenever obama gives a speech the stockmarket finishes down. Knew I should have sold some stock.

Short sellers are making a fortune under this president.

@Ditto: #35
I had suggested to my financial advisor that it would be a good idea to sell stock just before an Obama speech, then buy after the speech. He seemed to go along with it.