Obama’s grandiloquent rhetoric soared with promise upon promise – jobs, infrastructure rebuilding, tax breaks (unless you’re the guy who’s paying for all this stuff) – brought to you by an omnipotent all-caring government that can, shucks, do just about anything and give us so many good things. Good old Uncle Sam!
Now is the time to jumpstart job creation … invest in areas like energy, healthcare, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my [plan] is designed to do …
… this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs … jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Healthcare professionals can continue caring for our sick.
Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks …
Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college … Americans who have lost their jobs will receive extended unemployment benefits …
I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.
In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise … It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.
… this plan will require significant resources from the federal government …
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans …
But this wasn’t the speech delivered by Obama last Thursday to the special joint session of Congress. No, this one was delivered in February 2009 to another joint session a month after Obama’s inauguration. That was 30 months ago. The grandiloquence of Stimulus I took about $900 billion out of the private sector and created few of those 3.5 million jobs – in fact unemployment rose – and we remain trapped in a recession that is largely the product of Obama’s policies.
So those of us who turned on our televisions Thursday evening to watch the pre-game show for the Packers-Saints game thought we were reliving the nightmare of Phil Connors, the meteorologist sent to cover the coming out of Punxsutawney Phil in the movie Groundhog Day. Obama was on every major station and his much-heralded jobs speech was little more than the recycled words and ideas he fobbed off on Americans 30 months ago. He may call his “plan” the American Jobs Act, but it’s Stimulus II through and through and would transfer another $500 billion from the private sector to public waste.
Compare the following to the preceding:
The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed.
It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled … You should pass this jobs plan right away.
Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher.
Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job.
Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year.
… the notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own …
… where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, 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 G.I. Bill.
What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?
I am well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows: While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.
And by the way, I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.
Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.
This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math.
Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we will have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country.
I listened to the speech and I’ve read the speech – several times. Obama could have saved millions of football fans and Congress 43 minutes by skipping his limo ride to the Capitol and telling us to reread his failed 2009 jobs plan. Both speeches claim Obama knows how to create jobs, both have a sprinkling of goodies for all but the job creators, both defend the role of government, and both talk about those bad ol’ people and companies who don’t pay their fair share of taxes. This time he didn’t say how many jobs his plan would create, but once again he wants to spend a lot of money and hope for the best. If government spending money created jobs, we would be awash in them right now.
Did you ever notice how often Obama uses straw men, false choices, and blame shifting in his speeches? This one was filled with them. A straw man argument distorts and misrepresents an opponent’s position. A false choice, also known as an either-or fallacy, is presented as the only two available options to choose from, when in fact there may be other alternatives. Both are logical fallacies used in argumentation to misled and confuse an opponent or a constituency that one wants to influence. Look at Obama’s use of them in Thursday’s speech.
What I will not do is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top.
Is any person or party asking people to choose between their jobs and their safety? Is anyone saying that economic growth is held back because hidden credit card fees are banned, or because children are now protected from mercury exposure, or that laws were passed to prevent insurance companies from shortchanging patients? Who holds the position that collective bargaining rights must be stripped in order for us to be competitive in the global economy? Who advocates for the cheapest labor or the worst pollution standards? I know of no one holding these positions. But apparently Obama does. And by inference he’d have you think it is the Republicans.
Here’s another Obama straw man in Thursday’s speech:
… the notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own …
Who believes that, Obama?
And let’s throw in a false choice or two:
Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.
Then top it off with some blame shifting:
I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away….
Gee, I haven’t heard any calls to raise taxes on the middle class. Have you?
How did the Republicans avoid falling out of their chairs and rolling in the aisles with laughter with this line?
This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare.
If it isn’t political grandstanding and class warfare to claim that the wealthiest Americans and corporations don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes, what is it? The top 1% of income earners pay more than the bottom 95% combined and about half of the income earners pay no federal income taxes. Maybe Obama was thinking of Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE and one of Obama’s best buds, who was sitting in the balcony with the first lady. GE paid no tax on its $14 billion in profits last year – although quite legally. Obama can’t get straight in his mind the difference in tax evasion and tax avoidance.
There is no legal obligation to pay taxes not owed. Paying more than the statutory tax requirement is not a test for patriotism, despite Biden’s assertion to the contrary. Yet this didn’t prevent Obama from trotting out his customary bromide that Warren Buffett pays less tax than his secretary. Unmentioned was the fact that Buffett’s company pays him a token salary of $100,000. Virtually all of his income is in the form of dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate and taxed differently than ordinary W-2 income. So he probably does pay lower federal income tax than his secretary if she is paid more than $100,000.
This statement, made early in the speech, is grandstanding – and false.
And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.
As usual, Obama’s math is to spend now and pay over the next ten years. In other words, pay for it over the next five Congresses? No Congress can commit a future Congress to do anything. Of course, everything the government spends must be paid for by tax revenue or debt. The claim infers it won’t be debt. But it surely won’t be concurrent with spending.
At about the midpoint of the speech, Obama makes this unbelievable statement:
Now, the American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away.
Right away? Really? The country has been wallowing in record unemployment since Obama took office, and it has grown worse with him in office, yet he has a plan to create jobs “right away”? Why has he waited three years to reveal it? Would that qualify as grandstanding?
Within minutes of beginning his speech, Obama had this to say:
I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation.
Well, controversy is in the eye – and mind – of the beholder. Can permanent private sector jobs be created by temporary targeted tax cuts? I don’t think so. Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits even more than 112th Congress’ extension to 99 weeks. No new jobs are created by paying people not to work. No new jobs were created by the last temporary payroll tax cuts. To include them in the jobs plan and expect to get different results is pretty controversial, I’d say.
Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations.
Well, there’s that doggone straw man again.
As a matter of fact in 2010 Obama’s administration added new regulations at an average rate of ten per day! It would take a team of readers eleven months to read them and they added a cost of $11,000 per worker to small businesses – the biggest job generator in our economy. So yeah, eliminating government regulations that interfere with economic recovery would be a good start.
Obama sent his jobs “plan” to Congress on Monday. It has no chance of passing and Obama knows it. But since Obama can’t run on his record in 2012, he has to run against something and it looks like Congress is it. By proposing something he knows won’t pass the in Congress, Obama put his skills at straw men, false choices, and blame shifting to their best use in last Thursday’s speech. This bill was always about votes, not jobs.
Did anyone see which way Andie MacDowell went?
Now is the time to jumpstart job creation … invest in areas like energy, healthcare, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my [plan] is designed to do …
… this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs … jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Healthcare professionals can continue caring for our sick.
Because of this plan, 95% of the working households in America will receive a tax cut – a tax cut that you will see in your paychecks …
Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college … Americans who have lost their jobs will receive extended unemployment benefits …
I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history.
In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise … It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive.
… this plan will require significant resources from the federal government …
In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans …
But this wasn’t the speech delivered by Obama last Thursday to the special joint session of Congress. No, this one was delivered in February 2009 to another joint session a month after Obama’s inauguration. That was 30 months ago. The grandiloquence of Stimulus I took about $900 billion out of the private sector and created few of those 3.5 million jobs – in fact unemployment rose – and we remain trapped in a recession that is largely the product of Obama’s policies.
So those of us who turned on our televisions Thursday evening to watch the pre-game show for the Packers-Saints game thought we were reliving the nightmare of Phil Connors, the meteorologist sent to cover the coming out of Punxsutawney Phil in the movie Groundhog Day. Obama was on every major station and his much-heralded jobs speech was little more than the recycled words and ideas he fobbed off on Americans 30 months ago. He may call his “plan” the American Jobs Act, but it’s Stimulus II through and through and would transfer another $500 billion from the private sector to public waste.
Compare the following to the preceding:
The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: to put more people back to work and more money in the pockets of those who are working. It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed.
It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled … You should pass this jobs plan right away.
Pass this jobs bill, and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. These are the men and women charged with preparing our children for a world where the competition has never been tougher.
Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job.
Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year.
… the notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own …
… where would we be right now if the people who sat here before us decided not to build our highways, not to build our bridges, our dams, 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 G.I. Bill.
What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?
I am well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it. But here is what every American knows: While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets.
And by the way, I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.
Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.
This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math.
Regardless of the arguments we’ve had in the past, regardless of the arguments we will have in the future, this plan is the right thing to do right now. You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country.
I listened to the speech and I’ve read the speech – several times. Obama could have saved millions of football fans and Congress 43 minutes by skipping his limo ride to the Capitol and telling us to reread his failed 2009 jobs plan. Both speeches claim Obama knows how to create jobs, both have a sprinkling of goodies for all but the job creators, both defend the role of government, and both talk about those bad ol’ people and companies who don’t pay their fair share of taxes. This time he didn’t say how many jobs his plan would create, but once again he wants to spend a lot of money and hope for the best. If government spending money created jobs, we would be awash in them right now.
Did you ever notice how often Obama uses straw men, false choices, and blame shifting in his speeches? This one was filled with them. A straw man argument distorts and misrepresents an opponent’s position. A false choice, also known as an either-or fallacy, is presented as the only two available options to choose from, when in fact there may be other alternatives. Both are logical fallacies used in argumentation to misled and confuse an opponent or a constituency that one wants to influence. Look at Obama’s use of them in Thursday’s speech.
What I will not do is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety. I reject the argument that says for the economy to grow, we have to roll back protections that ban hidden fees by credit card companies, or rules that keep our kids from being exposed to mercury, or laws that prevent the health insurance industry from shortchanging patients. I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards. America should be in a race to the top.
Is any person or party asking people to choose between their jobs and their safety? Is anyone saying that economic growth is held back because hidden credit card fees are banned, or because children are now protected from mercury exposure, or that laws were passed to prevent insurance companies from shortchanging patients? Who holds the position that collective bargaining rights must be stripped in order for us to be competitive in the global economy? Who advocates for the cheapest labor or the worst pollution standards? I know of no one holding these positions. But apparently Obama does. And by inference he’d have you think it is the Republicans.
Here’s another Obama straw man in Thursday’s speech:
… the notion that the only thing we can do to restore prosperity is just dismantle government, refund everybody’s money, and let everyone write their own rules, and tell everyone they’re on their own …
Who believes that, Obama?
And let’s throw in a false choice or two:
Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.
Then top it off with some blame shifting:
I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away….
Gee, I haven’t heard any calls to raise taxes on the middle class. Have you?
How did the Republicans avoid falling out of their chairs and rolling in the aisles with laughter with this line?
This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare.
If it isn’t political grandstanding and class warfare to claim that the wealthiest Americans and corporations don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes, what is it? The top 1% of income earners pay more than the bottom 95% combined and about half of the income earners pay no federal income taxes. Maybe Obama was thinking of Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE and one of Obama’s best buds, who was sitting in the balcony with the first lady. GE paid no tax on its $14 billion in profits last year – although quite legally. Obama can’t get straight in his mind the difference in tax evasion and tax avoidance.
There is no legal obligation to pay taxes not owed. Paying more than the statutory tax requirement is not a test for patriotism, despite Biden’s assertion to the contrary. Yet this didn’t prevent Obama from trotting out his customary bromide that Warren Buffett pays less tax than his secretary. Unmentioned was the fact that Buffett’s company pays him a token salary of $100,000. Virtually all of his income is in the form of dividends and capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate and taxed differently than ordinary W-2 income. So he probably does pay lower federal income tax than his secretary if she is paid more than $100,000.
This statement, made early in the speech, is grandstanding – and false.
And everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.
As usual, Obama’s math is to spend now and pay over the next ten years. In other words, pay for it over the next five Congresses? No Congress can commit a future Congress to do anything. Of course, everything the government spends must be paid for by tax revenue or debt. The claim infers it won’t be debt. But it surely won’t be concurrent with spending.
At about the midpoint of the speech, Obama makes this unbelievable statement:
Now, the American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away.
Right away? Really? The country has been wallowing in record unemployment since Obama took office, and it has grown worse with him in office, yet he has a plan to create jobs “right away”? Why has he waited three years to reveal it? Would that qualify as grandstanding?
Within minutes of beginning his speech, Obama had this to say:
I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation.
Well, controversy is in the eye – and mind – of the beholder. Can permanent private sector jobs be created by temporary targeted tax cuts? I don’t think so. Obama wants to extend unemployment benefits even more than 112th Congress’ extension to 99 weeks. No new jobs are created by paying people not to work. No new jobs were created by the last temporary payroll tax cuts. To include them in the jobs plan and expect to get different results is pretty controversial, I’d say.
Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations.
Well, there’s that doggone straw man again.
As a matter of fact in 2010 Obama’s administration added new regulations at an average rate of ten per day! It would take a team of readers eleven months to read them and they added a cost of $11,000 per worker to small businesses – the biggest job generator in our economy. So yeah, eliminating government regulations that interfere with economic recovery would be a good start.
Obama sent his jobs “plan” to Congress on Monday. It has no chance of passing and Obama knows it. But since Obama can’t run on his record in 2012, he has to run against something and it looks like Congress is it. By proposing something he knows won’t pass the in Congress, Obama put his skills at straw men, false choices, and blame shifting to their best use in last Thursday’s speech. This bill was always about votes, not jobs.
Did anyone see which way Andie MacDowell went?
No comments:
Post a Comment