Obama’s job solution? More cowbell!

Seems like we are going to get to see insanity at play – the definition is doing the same thing over and expecting different results – tonight in Obama’s job speech, because his solution is to throw another $300 billion dollars in something they will try real hard not to identify as just more government stimulus, in tonight’s speech. Even more interesting was the quote I heard at the tail end of a radio news clip this morning where they had a politician I unfortunately did not identify – but he was a democrat – saying that the job’s plan was intended to produce an immediate bump for them. Long term this of course is wasted money, but 2012 is an election year. I am sure he didn’t mean to be that candid and honest about the plan though.

Then again, the issue may simply be that Obama is short and needs a lot more money to make that $1 billion war chest of his happen before the 2012 elections, and this “jobs plan” sure as hell is going to help if we go by what the other stimulus plan did for democrat campaign coffers. Maybe these tools will wise up that government can create jobs, but that government overregulation and stupid legislation sure as hell has killed the economy.Well, maybe not.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    It’s like they’re out of ideas. Well, more infrastructure and payroll tax cuts? What? We haven’t tried that before.

    We’re in debt, guys. There’s no easy way out of this. We just have to wait it out.

    Thumb up 1

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Never going to happen.

    Congress won’t approve the spending, and he’s planning on using that as “proof” that the GOP is the cause of all the economic problems.

    Thumb up 1

  3. Seattle Outcast

    Clinton News Network isn’t the most reliable of sources – did they mention exactly what the “cuts” were? I’m sure they are something meaningless or cuts on paper only.

    Thumb up 2

  4. AlexInCT *

    Yeah Mike, that’s in the plan – likely so they can pretend they are serious – but not scheduled to happen until long after Obama leaves office, which for those of us that speak liberalese, means never. Seriously, if anyone in the private sector used claims like these politicians do to pretend their spending binges are “revenue neutral”, they would end up behind bars. It’s more of the same nonsense and slight of hand that was used to convince so many gullible fools that a massive new healthcare takeover by government will result in actual savings while they all get free healthcare!

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Not while you are one of these politicians in charge and hoping to make your fortune though, Hal. To them the solution is massive spending now, under the deluded notion that will somehow create just enough of a bump to keep them in office a little longer so they can steal more, balanced out by promises of big cuts when they are long gone, with their booty to boot, and some other shmo is responsible for the budget. At which time the cuts obviously will not happen too.

    That’s precisely the recipe that got us here today BTW, but that’s what Obama will use tonight.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Seattle Outcast

    I guess he’s toting this as the “biggest tax cut for middle class” ever or some such. Of course, there’s no real definition for what constitutes the “middle class”, so I guess that, once again, it’s all open to spin from top to bottom.

    If you ever meet someone that claims to be “upper class” in the US, let me know. So far I’ve never met one, and I know people that have 8 figure incomes.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Poosh

    I was always baffled by Obama’s repeated claims that he was going to cut the taxes of the middle classes. The middle class are surely less needing of cuts compared to the poor and ‘working’ class ?

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    For the economy to turn around it’s the middle class that needs to have money to spend. The economy isn’t going to turn around via food-stamps. The middle-class is the key group in any economy.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Miguelito

    The middle class are surely less needing of cuts compared to the poor and ‘working’ class ?

    In order to give them “cuts” they’d need to be paying any federal income tax. Which they’re not.

    They’ll give them more “refundable credits” though, which would net them a gain and be yet more redistribution of wealth.

    I still want to see an honest answer to SO’s bit: Define the “Middle class.”

    Thumb up 2

  10. Poosh

    I have no idea why your middle class are not paying taxes or indeed why they are important for an economy any more than anyone else. Middle Class in the UK are between poor and rich… the middle…. with good to pretty good jobs, but not amazing jobs… some will be small business owners – they also include all Students for some reason, in terms of marketing, even though Students earn less than the poor. The middle class will always have some money to spend by definition, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be middle class. They’ll also be on the property ladder.

    Unless in america it means something waaaaaaaaaaaaay different. I find no moral reason for giving them tax breaks or freebies.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Miguelito

    Actually, by not paying I meant the “poor and ‘working’ class,” specifically, but it would also entail at least a chunk of the lower-middle class as well.

    I still haven’t’ seen a firm definition (like income levels) of what really constitutes the “middle class” since some levels seem wrong. For instance, Since I make a bit into 6 figures, I’m technically in the much vaunted “top 10%” yet I’m nowhere near rolling in piles of dough or taking treasure baths. I could just as easily lose my home and such if I were laid off and couldn’t get a new job within a few months. Yet people like me are continually derided as the rich who “don’t pay our fair share.” Believe me, I pay plenty. Between federal and state income tax, property taxes and all the fees the state, city and county put on us, I pay over 50% in taxes each year.

    Thumb up 0