Obama Gets Second Chance to Stress Jobs Focus at State of the Union

[Gerald]

President Obama declared in his last State of the Union address that jobs would be his "number one focus" in 2010. Consider this year's address Take 2.

With unemployment still hovering above 9 percent, the president will undoubtedly use his speech Tuesday to outline a revamped gameplan for tackling the country's economic problems. White House senior adviser David Plouffe, the president's former campaign chief, said as much Friday in an e-mail announcing Obama will discuss how to "create jobs today" and "make America more competitive tomorrow."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/21/obama-gets-second-chance-stress-jobs-focus-state-union/



Note: Published January 21, 2011

[Oberon]

In before Oba....dammit :damn:

[the_tyrant]

I'll bet things won't improve much

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oh, good.

[ETR3(SS)]

Unless the President is going to increase his staff by thousands he can't create any jobs. The only people that can create jobs are the people. Consumers need to demand more from companies. That means accountability. As a consumer I am their most important investor, more important than the share holders, they need to be accountable for everything in their business. Made a poor business decision? Own up to it and try something new. When that demand is heard and enacted upon, consumer confidence will grow and people will be more willing to part with their money. And it will all trickle back through the system.

[The Third Man]

Unless the President is going to increase his staff by thousands he can't create any jobs. The only people that can create jobs are the people. Consumers need to demand more from companies. That means accountability. As a consumer I am their most important investor, more important than the share holders, they need to be accountable for everything in their business. Made a poor business decision? Own up to it and try something new. When that demand is heard and enacted upon, consumer confidence will grow and people will be more willing to part with their money. And it will all trickle back through the system.


Wow that sounds just like the free market system.

[Gerald]

President Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law's testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/22/obama-push-new-spending/


Note: Update record, Published January 22, 2011

[Takeda Shingen]

I thought that the two stimuli were supposed to be about education, research and infastructure. You know, reforming and funding educational programs, giving our scientific research a shot in the arm and, not to forget, the so-called shovel-ready projects to improve our decaying infastructure. Don't get me wrong, all three of those things are critical, but if the money didn't go to them the first time, what makes anyone think that they'll go there again, especially with the fact that President Obama is likely using those projects as a ploy against Team R. These three items are popular across nearly all segments of the American voting public, but I'd be a fool to believe that any meaningful amount of money will ever get to them from yet another spending bill.

[Gerald]

Obama's grasping at straws to get the balance with itself and the country and disaffected voters

[Takeda Shingen]

I could tell you what I am getting tired of, but you probably wouldn't like it very much. Besides, Vendor beat you to the punch; we already have a State of the Union thread: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=179348

[gimpy117]

Lol. I remember 2002-3 when we were all told to "respect the office"

what happened to that? oh wait...hes a democrat so i guess that doesn't apply now huh.

[Bubblehead1980]

Anyone else tired of this "Obama will move to the center" talk concerning the State of the Union speech Tuesday? Much like anything to do with Obama, the media will hype the bloody hell out of this speech and root for him in a rather overt manner.Obama is not and never will be a centrist but will make moves in order to appear as one, so that he can con enough people into voting for him in 2012 and push hard for his agenda, which has thus far done nothing for the US but add debt and divide the people along class/racial lines.Enough is enough, don't fall for it people.

[krashkart]

Oh I agree that the media will hype the snot out of his speech. They always do. Frankly, I'm fed up with the entire system. I don't care which side of the aisle has the floor; it's the same cycle of speech-->media frenzy-->blah blah blah that's been in effect for years. These days I'm hard-pressed to believe anything I'm being told - I'm more cynical about these things than ever before.

Tired of his promises? Tell ya what, I'm tired of any of the promises they make. By 'they' I mean everybody with a letter after their name. I'm sure some of them really want to make good on their promises, and they probably would if the R's and D's would quit sparring with each other. It's pointless.

Bah... anyway. :88):haha:

/rant

[August]

Anyone else tired of this "Obama will move to the center" talk concerning the State of the Union speech Tuesday


Not me. I want President Obama to be successful in his endeavor to mend fences.

[Kaye T. Bai]

If Barack H. Obama is a centrist, then George W. Bush is a liberal. :up:

[krashkart]

In before Oba....dammit :damn:

In before Obe... well I'll be a cooked noodle... :shifty:



Kidding aside, I wish the President luck in his endeavors. I just wish the loudest, angriest voices would pipe down a bit so we can all hear some sort of clarity in his voice.

[Ducimus]

Lol. I remember 2002-3 when we were all told to "respect the office"

what happened to that? oh wait...hes a democrat so i guess that doesn't apply now huh.

Seriously. You don't have to respect the man, but you should respect the rank and office he holds. There is a fine distinction there.

So either learn to deal with it, or get active in politics and so something about it. And getting active in politics involves ALOT more then just whining tin foil hat theories on damn messageboard.


I'm a bit tired of the constant.. yes CONSTANT partisan rhetoric being spewed back and forth. For some people, every other word out of them is party rhetoric. The sad thing is, they probably don't even realize it. I dunno about anyone else, but it's used so often now, that the instant i see ONE use of party rhetoric, it compeletely invalidates everything else being said.

[Armistead]

Seriously. You don't have to respect the man, but you should respect the rank and office he holds. There is a fine distinction there.

So either learn to deal with it, or get active in politics and so something about it. And getting active in politics involves ALOT more then just whining tin foil hat theories on damn messageboard.


I'm a bit tired of the constant.. yes CONSTANT partisan rhetoric being spewed back and forth. For some people, every other word out of them is party rhetoric. The sad thing is, they probably don't even realize it. I dunno about anyone else, but it's used so often now, that the instant i see ONE use of party rhetoric, it compeletely invalidates everything else being said.

:yeah::yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

I'm a bit tired of the constant.. yes CONSTANT partisan rhetoric being spewed back and forth. For some people, every other word out of them is party rhetoric. The sad thing is, they probably don't even realize it.
Yep, and they think they're being centrist and honest, so they also don't believe you could possibly be talking about them.

I dunno about anyone else, but it's used so often now, that the instant i see ONE use of party rhetoric, it compeletely invalidates everything else being said.
Yep. Holds true for most of us. But they don't realize that either, so they'll just keep passing their gas.

[Armistead]

This year’s crop of Republican candidates are quite fond of riling the American people up about deficits and the national debt, but, as they say, you shouldn’t throw stones if you live in a glass house. In the eight years George Bush was in office - six of which Republicans controlled both houses of Congress - he and his GOP colleagues managed to nearly double the national debt. When he entered office in January 2001, the national debt stood at $5.73 trillion. By the time he left office in January 2009, the national debt stood at $10.7 trillion - an increase of $4.97 trillion.



Republicans managed to take the prosperity produced by the economic policies of the Clinton years and blow a gaping hole in the budget. When Bush entered office he was handed a $236 billion budget surplus that was on pace to produce budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. By the time President Obama took office, he was facing a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit, projected to accumulate to $3.1 trillion through 2019.



Perhaps the nation’s fiscal situation would not have been near as bad had Republicans not catered to the wealthiest Americans during their time in power while largely ignoring the engine that powers the nation’s economy, the middle class. Providing the richest Americans with $1.8 trillion in tax cuts over a 10-year period certainly didn’t help.



Nor did the ill-advised decision to invade Iraq help the nation’s fiscal situation. As of February 2010, the estimated cost of America’s Republican-guided misadventure in Iraq had cost the nation over $700 billion. Long term costs, including health care for veterans and interest payments on the borrowed money used to finance the war, could amount to nearly $2 trillion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

[gimpy117]

This year’s crop of Republican candidates are quite fond of riling the American people up about deficits and the national debt, but, as they say, you shouldn’t throw stones if you live in a glass house. In the eight years George Bush was in office - six of which Republicans controlled both houses of Congress - he and his GOP colleagues managed to nearly double the national debt. When he entered office in January 2001, the national debt stood at $5.73 trillion. By the time he left office in January 2009, the national debt stood at $10.7 trillion - an increase of $4.97 trillion.



Republicans managed to take the prosperity produced by the economic policies of the Clinton years and blow a gaping hole in the budget. When Bush entered office he was handed a $236 billion budget surplus that was on pace to produce budget surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. By the time President Obama took office, he was facing a $1.2 trillion dollar deficit, projected to accumulate to $3.1 trillion through 2019.



Perhaps the nation’s fiscal situation would not have been near as bad had Republicans not catered to the wealthiest Americans during their time in power while largely ignoring the engine that powers the nation’s economy, the middle class. Providing the richest Americans with $1.8 trillion in tax cuts over a 10-year period certainly didn’t help.



Nor did the ill-advised decision to invade Iraq help the nation’s fiscal situation. As of February 2010, the estimated cost of America’s Republican-guided misadventure in Iraq had cost the nation over $700 billion. Long term costs, including health care for veterans and interest payments on the borrowed money used to finance the war, could amount to nearly $2 trillion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.






:up::up:

[NeonSamurai]

I merged part of another thread with this, and deleted the remainder of that other thread, so things may be a little out of order here.

[Takeda Shingen]

Everybody got which watch party they're going to?

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=270463344110

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=183398808357083

And there are countless others. It's as I have been saying; politics is like a sporting event to a large segment of the American populace. Go team go! Fight, fight fight!

[CaptainHaplo]

Armistead - post talking points much? The CBO - being non-partisan - would not label anything a "Republican guided misadventure".

I'm sure someone could post rebutting talking points, but I have better things to do with my time than let others tell me what to think so I can parrot them.

Takeda has it right - it has become a sporting event. Which is sad, because we should all be pulling for the same team - and that team has 3 letters - not one. U S of A. Not R or D.

Thats the key - it should stop being politics, and be about results. When one looks at results, the last 4 presidents - current one included - have been pretty dang crappy. Bush 1 saw a recession coming and floundered his way through it, taking some actions that did little more than set up his successor to fail - leading to the .com bust. Clinton was not horrible economically, but he wasn't that great either, and his inaction on national security later cost us on September 11th. "Dubya" Bush was willing to fight when it came to national security, though he was a bit myopic in his targetting. Economically he wasn't paying much attention, and failed to act on that side of the house following the turmoil he faced early. Thus the "Great Recession" was born. Obama, facing a fiscal crisis, has focused on anything but resolving the economic issues this country is dealing with. Social issues and pandering to his supporters while bogging down the economic engines of this country has been his actions so far.

See - its not about the letter - for 22 years the pilots in the wheelhouse either knew how to steer, or knew how to make the ship go - but none of em knew how to do both. When you drift for 20 years, you end up where we are today.