Let Obama Speak Before GOP Debate! UPDATED

The White House’s disdain is palpable and so is the attempt to build a narrative:

The speech will fall on the same night Texas Gov. Rick Perry makes his debut on the GOP 2012 debate stage. The Republican presidential field is set to take part in a debate, also scheduled to begin at 8 p.m., at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, Calif.

Asked whether the speech was purposefully scheduled the same night as the Republican debate, White House press secretary Jay Carney said “of course not.”

“It is coincidental,” said Carney, who explained that a number of considerations were taken into account when Obama settled on Sept. 7.

The WH clearly thinks this is a win-win of political spin. If Speaker Boehner agrees to the address, the White House gets to re-assert its primacy and Obama gets to seem presidential**. If Boehner says no, the Obama gets to say “see, the GOP won’t put country before party! They won’t work with me! They won’t work for you!”

Legal Insurrection writes that Boehner should say no to this transparently political maneuver:

I assume that protocol is that a President gets to give a speech to a Joint Session of Congress whenever he wants, but this is abusive and purely political.

Just say No

I’m not sure I agree. I think Boehner should say, “by all means, Mr. President; we’re so anxious to hear your jobs plan that we’ll be glad to put off our debate by a few hours. Our candidates should have a chance to hear your ideas, so they can include them within the context of their own ideas about job creation. We welcome the opportunity to demonstrate our stark distinctions.”

That sort of response disarms Obama, who then won’t be able to crow “they don’t care about jobs” and it arms the debate participants, who will be able to go into their debate with Obama’s plans ripe for deconstruction.

What the GOP needs to remember is that the Democrats no longer govern; they just maneuver, and they do it brilliantly. The GOP needs to learn how to do it. It’s actually a bit of an art

Ed Morrissey writes:

By putting his jobs speech into the context of historical presidential addresses, Obama is setting a high bar on expectations for his new plan. If all he delivers is the same speeded-up infrastructure spending, gimmicky tax breaks, and social-engineering subsidies for Democratic hobby-horse industries, then he’s risking a spectacular failure — and even more questions about his political and economic competence.

I wonder if Obama will attempt to triangulate the issue. I’m sure the President puts enormous stock in the power of his rhetoric. If rhetoric is all he’ll have to offer, along with the usual straw men, false choices and determined increase in spending, it will be spectacular only for its tone-deafness and its utter inability to understand how business, especially job-creating small business, feels confident enough to expand and hire.

**To my way of thinking, if Obama really wants to look presidential and put “country before party” he’d publicly correct this guy for “acting stupidly”

UPDATE: Ace writes:

Boehner should just say no, or propose that it comes earlier. That would be the smartest play– for Boehner say “There must be no delay, let’s do this sooner, not later.” I think.

Andrew McCarthy: There is no reason why Obama needs to make his announcement before a joint session of Congress — any more than there was any reason why, if he really has a cure for what ails us, he needed to delay it for a couple of weeks while he went on his Martha’s Vineyard vacation. He could have announced it on the 18th hole.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • cathyf

    Best suggestion that I’ve heard so far is that Boehner should say, “Mr. President, you are invited to speak to Congress on your jobs bill 7 days AFTER sending the enabling legislation, in writing, to the House and Senate. We’re looking forward to seeing you.”

  • lethargic

    Let Obama speak. The more he speaks, the more he puts his foot in his mouth … even with Teletubbie. Let the people hear what he has to say … then hear what the other candidates have to say … it can only hurt BO and show the common sense superiority of even the least of the other candidates.

  • Mandy P.

    “Andrew McCarthy: There is no reason why Obama needs to make his announcement before a joint session of Congress — any more than there was any reason why, if he really has a cure for what ails us, he needed to delay it for a couple of weeks while he went on his Martha’s Vineyard vacation. He could have announced it on the 18th hole.”

    This x 1000.

  • http://fallingupwardholly.blogspot.com/ Holly Rutchik

    This really made me mad. That being said, I agree that there is really nothing he can say, he is just going to put his foot in his mouth.
    I say just move the GOP back a few hours so that they havea chance to blow holes in what Obama says (which won’t be hard, I am sure)

  • duneview

    Having the candidates debate after hearing Obama’s address would be fun – he outlines the long awaited plan and they get to smack it around like a piñata for a few hours.

    Of course NBC and Politico, being the White House cheerleaders, would never agree to a debate reschedule which giving the Republicans any kind of edge. Lord, Matthews would chop off his tingling limb before allowing that.

    No, I’m with cathyf on this one. Delay the address, Mr. President. What ever happened to the posting stuff promise?

  • Teresa

    He only requested the joint session of Congress for the speech because it is a good venue (he thinks) for him to kick-off his campaign. That’s all he cares about. As an added bonus for him the White House operatives think it would be great if he could upstage the Republicans on the night of their debate. How juvenile. Doesn’t matter to me when he speaks as I don’t watch or listen to him anyway. It still blows my mind to think that so many people were fooled by this grifter in 2008.

  • Mark L

    Well, I think Boehner’s response pretty well nails things. Not political, and keeps things where they should be — following the rules of the House.

    August 31, 2011

    President Barack Obama

    The White House

    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President:

    Thank you for your letter requesting time to address a Joint Session of Congress next week. I agree that creating a better environment for job creation must be our most urgent priority. For months, the House has been implementing an agenda designed to reduce economic uncertainty, remove unnecessary government barriers to private-sector job creation, and help small businesses, and we welcome the opportunity to hear your latest proposals.

    As your spokesperson today said, there are considerations about the Congressional calendar that must be made prior to scheduling such an extraordinary event. As you know, the House of Representatives and Senate are each required to adopt a Concurrent Resolution to allow for a Joint Session of Congress to receive the President. And as the Majority Leader announced more than a month ago, the House will not be in session until Wednesday, September 7, with votes at 6:30 that evening. With the significant amount of time – typically more than three hours – that is required to allow for a security sweep of the House Chamber before receiving a President, it is my recommendation that your address be held on the following evening, when we can ensure there will be no parliamentary or logistical impediments that might detract from your remarks. As such, on behalf of the bipartisan leadership and membership of both the House and Senate, I respectfully invite you to address a Joint Session of Congress on Thursday, September 8, 2011 in the House Chamber, at a time that works best for your schedule.

    We look forward to hearing your ideas and working together to solve America’s jobs crisis.


    John Boehner

  • http://wisdoma.com Brian

    Obama’s administration in a nutshell…

    Be incompetent in taking action. Then be weak and back down.

  • friscoeddie

    Wow.. you guys got Obama to back down.. It’s moved to the next day…he was frightened about that GOP talk fest in Simi Valley..

  • Barbara Peters

    I for one am very interested in hearing what the President has to say and hope that Congress will act quickly on his proposals and/or come up with some of their own. We need to get people back to work. I know many people who are looking hard for jobs but remain unemployed. There is a great deal of suffering in this country and politics cannot get in the way of making things happen. I am reading that the President will propose tax breaks for companies that hire unemployed individuals. That would be welcome news because there are many places that will not even interview someone who is not currently employed. Since I am not a football fan I have no problem that the Speaker is making the President give his speech on the same night as the first game of the football season. I am also anxious to hear specific job proposals from the Republican candidates who would have to hit the ground running if elected. So far all I have heard from them are complaints about government spending and nothing specific about job creation. I would like to hear their ideas for getting these multi national corporations to invest in this country by bringing jobs back here.

  • Sandy

    In response to Barbara who says that giving tax breaks to companies to hire people is a good idea. Since companies are in the business of making a profit, don’t you think that if a company is doing well and needs more people, they would hire people on their own without getting our tax money. If they hire based on getting tax breaks, do they really need that worker and all the costs incurred when hiring someone, health insurance, etc. And, by the way, I am not interested in hearing what this President has to say. If he hasn’t done anything in the past 2 years, why should we believe him that all of a sudden he has a plan, maybe it has something to do with the election coming next year. Like most politicians he tells people what they want to hear, not what they should hear. This President has no real interest in helping the people of our country, only himself.

  • Mark L

    Well the easiest way to get multinational corporations to come back to the United States would be to reign in the NLRB

    Their rulings — from attempting to force Boeing to relocate its just-completed and ready-to-roll South Carolina 767 assembly line to Washington state, to those recent ones allowing unions to create unions within companies by job title all encourage multinationals to go overseas. (The NLRB has no say if Boeing puts its line in China or Australia.)

    Similarly whimsical changes in environmental laws, based on junk science (the new CO2 caps) also encourage multinationals to move overseas. (Which also increases net global pollution, but better to shut down Texas coal-fired plants so that the coal is burned in Chinese plants that produce more particulate pollution — and that does drift over here.)

    Then there is the Lacey act which allows the Federal Government to seize property containing certain types of wood or animal products until the owner can prove that they were extracted “properly.” This has been used to confiscate items that are 100 or more years old which contain ivory or certain woods — because the owner cannot prove the chain of custody to the Feds satisfaction. It, too, is encouraging multinationals to move overseas so they don’t have to hassle with Federal raids, such as the one Gibson Guitar had a few days ago — when the Feds asserted that Gibson was violating an Indian law (even though the Indian government says there was no violation). Now Gibson is facing an expensive court fight to get their property back.

    Cutting back odious regulations are proposals that have been made by numerous Republican candidates. Anyone that is unaware of that is not paying attention. And, yes curtaining whimsical and odious regulation *does* affect job creation.

    (Earlier this summer I briefly considered starting a company that would have created five to ten new jobs, but finally decided that I would make more money with less hours working for someone else. Main reason I did not was the tangle of Federal Regulations I faced, and the penalties for violating them. Wasn’t worth it. I have a job now that pays as much as I could have reasonably expected running my own company — at least initially — but there are four to nine others that are still unemployed because I chose to be an employee rather than an employer.)

    Another *specific* example of a job creation initiative offered by the Republicans is Rick Perry’s “loser pays” proposal. If the loser of a lawsuit has to pay all court costs, frivolous lawsuits are discouraged. That means businesses have to defend themselves fewer times because “roll-the-dice and let’s see if we win” trial lawyers lose more than their time if they initiate a lawsuit and lose. Right now it makes more sense for them to sue someone than to sit in their offices doing nothing.

    Reducing frivolous lawsuits will significantly reduce corporate legal costs which in turn frees up money for R&D or expansion, both of which create jobs. Admittedly some lawyers would go unemployed, but you can hire a lot of shop-floor workers for the cost of one lawyer. And the workers actually produce something.

    Ignoring the cost of regulation and lawsuits on job creation is to ignore a major reason for anemic job growth over the last two years.

  • LisaB

    How embarrassing for the people who voted for him.

    “So far all I have heard from them are complaints about government spending and nothing specific about job creation.”

    There are other sources than the alphabet media, try reading the content at this link:

    The Executive branch and 1/2 of the Legislative branch of the government is held by the Democrats – the health of the economy is on their shoulders – they own it.

  • Mandy P.

    To add on to Mike’s post, the other things that could be done would be to flatten and lock in tax rates and cut federal spending. Businesses want certainty. When federal intervention in the form of taxes, spending policy, and regulation is all over the place, it creates a climate of uncertainty and businesses/investors are significantly less likely to invest their capital and/or expand. Flattening and locking in tax rates makes the tax system predictable and easy to comply with, providing certainty businesses are looking for. And getting our spending under control would go a long way towards strengthening consumer confidence. After all, who is going out and spending their money when they’re worried the entire country is on the verge of collapse? Nobody, that’s who. If consumer confidence could be eased, people would loosen their wallets a bit and then businesses could get going. But if a company expands and hires more workers while consumers are simultaneously tightening their belts, that’s a bad investment and will harm the company.

    All of these things, BTW, are frequent suggestions by Republicans in Congress, GOP presidential candidates, as well as GOP policy analysts. Providing some kind of tax credit for hiring the unemployed is worthless if companies aren’t in a position to expand and hirein the first place. The key is to get the economic and regulatory certainty that businesses and consumers need to quelle some enough of their fears that they start spending again.

  • http://desperateirishhousewife.blogspot.com Susan Vigilante

    Moral of the story#1: make sure the Speaker’s Office has signed off on the date before you announce your speech. That’s standard procedure.

    Moral of the story #2: The Obama administration does not even understand Moral #1.

  • friscoeddie

    Where is the outrage that all the GOP candidates want capital gains tax and dividends tax to go to ZERO. Thus the super rich won’t pay any tax. They only pay 15% now and want zero.. They don’t go to work like us slobs. They don’t have wages just investments.

  • Barbara Peters

    My understanding is that other countries are also attractive because they have low wage earners and employers are not responsible for employee health care. The United States is the only country where employers pay the costs of health care. Also, for all the regulations in this country – and I agree they need to be reviewed – I cant imagine there is more certainty in doing business with the Chinese or Indian governments. Also, I understand the President is Democrat and the Senate has a democratic majority, but the House is Republican. Moreover, due to the filibuster rule, the Senate does not act by majority vote anymore. Votes require a super majority so the Republicans due have a great deal of power and governing responsibility. Finally, I dont think government austerity will help with consumer confidence and I dont think it will help create demand in what is a 70% consumption economy like ours. Decreased government spending is not a job creator. Increased demand is a job creator and without jobs there will be no demand but without demand there will be no jobs. We are in a pickle here.

  • Barbara Peters

    With respect to Gov. Perry’s “loser pays all” proposal, why should corporations have so much power over us? Have you ever tried to make a complaint to a corporation? You cant even get a human being on the phone and if you do the response is generally unhelpful. This gives corporations total power with no accountability – there would be no right or way to redress grievances and you cant vote them out of office. Be careful what you wish for – no regulatory oversight of multi national corporations with no allegiance to this country and limited ability to sue a multi national corporation in court does not benefit individual Americans. I personally believe it is where our country is heading and it frightens me.

  • Doc

    Barbara, you don’t really mean that corporations have more power over us than the federal government, do you? That is absurd, you know. I can choose not to be a corporation’s customer. I cannot choose to ignore the federal government. And corporations are responsive to their customers, as customers provide their revenues and profits. The Democrats are responsive to their biggest doners, like unions, and string-pullers, like Soros, the MSM, and Buffett.

  • Barbara Peters

    I am not one who believes the federal government is my enemy. Yes I do think corporations have a great deal of power and are accumulating more. If I am unhappy with the government’s actions or direction, I can vote to change that. I have a constitutional right to redress my grievances. I have no such rights with respect to corporations. As for doing business with another corporation, that is not always possible. Take for example cable services – the options are very limited where I live and the only real service is very expensive. Take for example the proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile. If the government does not stop that merger, there will be only two huge corporations to choose from -AT&T and Verizon. This limited competition will reduce services and increase costs for us and we would have no right or ability to change anything. We will be at the mercy of corporations that are accountable to no one but their owners and shareholders. I love my country and I support the federal government. It is not perfect but I can change what I do not like – I have no ability to do that with a corporation.

  • Mandy P.

    The problem though, Barbara, is that while you don’t see the federal government as potentially harmful as you see businesses, the reality is that it is. For example, you take issue with having to do business with only one company or none at all. Well, look at why that is in the first place. Excessive government regulations, high tax burdens, etc, all create an environment where the only types of businesses that can survive are the large one. Big corporations have the means and resources to comply with all sorts of government intervention whereas smaller companies do not. The result of a goodly amount of government intervention is small businesses closing because they can’t afford to comply. In a nutshell, the more government interference there is the easier for big companies to put the smaller ones out of business.

    And again, reining in federal spending would go a long way to creating a more stable market. You may choose not to believe that, but it doesn’t make it any less true. The problem is that we’re currently borrowing $1.5 trillion more a year than we’re taking in. And our debt to GDP ratio is now over 100% with extremely slow growth. In other words we’re borrowing significantly faster than we’re growing and that’s indisputably unsustainable. That fact in and of itself creates instability. Economic instability decreases consumer confidence. I said, if people are expecting an economic collapse on the horizon they’re not likely to be out buying a lot of stuff. And that goes double for anyone who would invest right now.

  • Barbara Peters

    Excessive government regulations should be modified – I agree. I am not sure which regulations you refer to that have forced businesses to close but government should be responsive to such a situation You have to work hard to convince me that corporations are unfairly taxed in this country – oil companies received huge subsidies, General Electric paid no taxes last year I believe and there are CEOs whose compensation is higher than the taxes paid by their companies. If there are unfair taxes then they should be revised. I believe both parties believe in tax reform. As for the GDP – we are not producing anything in this country. We are a consumption economy. Our jobs left this country before 2008. This is a jobless recovery because the large corporations have outsourced our jobs. Ford is building a plant — in India because that is where the demand is. If there is no demand here and the private sector is not creating jobs here and the federal government stops spending and goes on an austerity plan – how are we supposed to crawl out of this mess? The fact that there is no apparent way out is the reason for a lack of consumer confidence. Borrowing is not healthy but neither is public sector austerity when the private sector is not creating jobs in this country but is investing instead in emerging markets across the globe.

  • Mandy P.

    First, oil companies are not getting “subsidies”. That’s a talking point. A subsidy is where you do x and the government gives you money to continue doing x. So you farm corn and there’s a subsidy for farming so many acres of corn. The oil companies- and every single energy producer including those who produce so-called green energy- are eligible to write off their losses. Just like every single other business in the entire country. All that means is that don’t pay taxes on money they lose. If a company had to pay taxes on money it lost there would be no incentive to go into business at all. And oil companies actually get a lower percentage that they can write off than companies in other industries.

    Second, you have to ask yourself why companies are creating jobs in emerging economies versus here. I would contend that it’s because the cost of doing business here is exponentially higher than elsewhere. Even in countries like China, the risk of running afoul of their government doesn’t look so bad when you can open a business and staff it at low cost. And why is it so expensive here? Taxes and regulation, my friend. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Even European countries lowered their corporate tax rates by a substantial chunk in the past decade or so. And the cost of complying with several hundred thousand pages in the federal register of regulations is not negligible. And that doesn’t even get to all the costs of actually hiring and maintaining employees, insuring their workplaces, and so on and so forth. In a nutshell, it’s cheaper to do business elsewhere. Simplifying taxes, regulations, etc would go a long way in making the country more business friendly.

    An example of regulation harming business and causing potential closings: Obamacare. My step-dad is part owner in a restaurant chain in the North and Central Florida areas. 15 restaurants that employee about 50 people at each location. As of 2014, if Obamacare is not repealed or significantly altered the entire chain will be closing it’s doors. Why? They cannot afford to pay for health insurance for their employees and they can’t afford the fines, either. In order to comply with the law and all the new regulations that come with it, they would have to quadruple (or more) prices. And this is a chicken wing place, so imagine going into a wing joint and being asked to pay $30 or $40 for ten wings and a coke. I wouldn’t pay that, would you? And that’s the problem that government regularly creates for businesses.

    I would also like to add that another thing that would help the economy tremendously would before the fed to stop printing money (which they like to call quantitative easing). The more money in circulation, the less it’s worth. That drives up the cost of everything and kills consumption.

  • Mandy P.

    Another thing I would like to point out is that ALL economies are “consumption” economies. Consumption is what drives production. If people aren’t consuming something, it won’t get produced. I think what you mean to say is that our jobs market is more of a service market than a production market; ie, we’re more in the business of providing customer service instead of making things. But that’s an important distinction to understand. And it really ties in to everything else I’ve said because if it were cost effective to build things in the US, companies would be doing it in a heartbeat.

  • Barbara Peters

    Mandy P. – Who is paying for the health insurance now for the employees of the company you referenced? Are there 50 uninsured employees? Are they earning salaries that enable them to pay for their own insurance or are these minimum wage employees who cant afford medical coverage? Techinically you are right, oil companies get tax breaks – see IRS Code Section 199 – that allows them to deduct certain expenses. Why do they need these tax breaks when they are making record profits? Why cant that money be used to reduce the deficit? Not all economies are consumption economies – we do not produce or manufacture anything here. In addition, the service jobs have gone overseas too – when was the last time you spoke to a customer service representative located in this country? Also ask some young lawyers who cant find work because law firms are sending out document review jobs to companies in India – work that was usually done by first and second year lawyers. The jobs are not being created here because the demand is not here.

  • Barbara Peters

    Also, employers in other countries do not have to worry about health insurance expenses. As far as I know, this is the only country in the world where health insurance is an employer expense. Does anyone know of any other country that has our system of employer based health care?

  • Doc

    Sick people in other countries also don’t have to worry about getting superior treatment from the government health care system. They often get no treatment at all, right up until death.

  • Mandy P.

    I don’t know who is paying for those employees to have insurance. What I do know is that thenlaw will cause them to not have a job. So, if they are paying their own, they will still be responsible for that in addition to having no job. If they are on medical assistance they will still be on medical assistance in addition to having no job. Either way, their situations are worse.

    All companies need those write offs Barbara or else there’s no reason to go into business at all. And the record profits argument is yet another talking point that’s frankly been debunked. Oil companies make a smaller profit- percentage wise and dollar amount- than Apple, for example. But I don’t see anyone calling for the removal of Apple’s ability to write off losses. And I don’t see any convincing argument as to why we should tax people on money they have lost. We charge taxes on earnings and income. A loss is not in either of those categories.

    Further, oil companies provide a vital service to our society. That service costs money: to procure, to refine, to transport, to pump, etc. If you add in yet another cost what do you think will happen? Do you think prices might go up further harming every day consumers?

    One thing that I need to point out here is that your fall back answer to these things is to continue punishing businesses in the form of higher taxes. But then complain that the demand for jobs is not here. Well, when you make it your policy to punish success what do you think will happen? You really need to remember that businesses are created, invested in, and run by people. And not all of those people are rich. But the vast majority of them took very great risks to themselvesnand their livelihoods to start those businesses in an effort to attain financial success. If we punish people for that success then why should they bother doing business here?

    As far as the debt and the deficit goes, a few points. First, the deficit has increased dramatically in the past three years. We went from running deficits in the low hundred to mid hundred billions to over $1.5 trillion annually. And no that money isn’t all going to food stamps and unemployment benefits. Second, when you hear people in Washingont talk about cuts, what they’re talking about is a cut in the rate of growth. That means that funding for program x is set to increase by y amount next year and we cut the amount we’re increasing it. So when you hear people crying about cuts to their pet programs what they’re really talking about is that the will be getting a smaller amount of additional money next year. That’s not a real cut. Third, we are paying for a heck of a lot of junk that is flat out wasteful. Cowboy poetry? Do we really need to be paying for that? I didn’t think so. Cut that garbage out. Fourth, if you look at total federal expenditures, the biggest dollars go to defense and the big 3 entitlements. 52 cents out of every dollar spent goes to the big 3. About a quarter of every dollar spent goes to defense (military, DHS, etc) and that figure includes the wars that are winding down. We can certainly find places in the defense budget to cut. But we also need to start being realistic about our entitlements. As it stands now the big 3 are on course to overtake federal revenues in the next decade or two. That means that every dollar we take in will go to entitlements and we will have to borrow additional money to fund the big 3 in total. Every single other federal expenditure will have to be paid with borrowed money. So, reform absolutely has to happen, period.

    I get the feeling that you don’t like the idea of cutting back on our spending but what I really, sincerely urge you to consider is that all those entitlements and spending programs aren’t going to mean much if we collapse. We truly are in serious danger of facing a Weimar Republic situation if we can’t get spending and inflation under control. And it is going to get to the point where our creditors stop lending to us because there’s no way they will ever get paid back. And there are literally no amount of taxes you could increase on “the rich” or those nebulous “corporations” that will reverse this trend. Historically, even with tax increases, the federal government takes in about 18% GDP. Year in and year out, that’s what they take in. The key is to not do anything that will make GDP contract (or at least keep it from contracting for an extended amount of time). GDP needs to grow and we need to curb our spending to get out of the mess we’re in. Which is why spending a boat load of money on all these incentives is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

    I know I just wrote a novel here (sorry!), but these are really important concepts that you really do need to understand. I think you mean well so I don’t want to offend you here, but a lot of what you’re saying is just not economically sound. In my life prior to children I was quite a career girl and I managed two businesses over a period of about a decade. So this isn’t a matter of me repeating GOP talking points but of things I learned through experience.

  • Barbara Peters

    Mandy P – Since you have written a novel I cannot respond to all of what you wrote. As far as the deficit increasing over the past three years, well it was already above the flood line in 2008 due to two wars, Medicaid Part B and the Bush tax cuts. As far as the deficit increasing – the bailout of GM worked and we still have an auto industry and all those related jobs. The point of the Stimulus was to keep demand at a relatively stable place until the economy could start up again. That worked for a short while but without the jobs that were sent overseas during the last decade this economic recovery is losing energy. Social security does not add to the deficit. I do not believe in taxing success – a talk radio bit of propaganda – but I do believe corporations could be asked to pay their fair share of taxes to a country that has given them so much and has allowed them to make their wealth that they are now hoarding or spending overseas. Spending must be brought under control and the deficit must be reduced. However it shouldnt be just the poor and middle class who should be asked to sacrifice. There must be a balanced approach. Spending cuts combined with revenue and tax reform. Finally, the point of Obamacare is to ensure that minimum wage employees can get and afford health care. You cant agree that a situation where people do not have access to health care is acceptable do you? What is your solution to your employees who do not have health care? What is being done for them? I think we all basically agree with each other that a balanced approach is needed – spending cuts and revenue – but politics will not allow us to work together to solve problems. I hope you understand better now – it does sound like you listen alot to talk radio. By the the way I am a “career woman” and manage a business.

  • friscoeddie

    Doc says..”Sick people in other countries also don’t have to worry about getting superior treatment from the government health care system. They often get no treatment at all, right up until death.’
    Doc…[not] tell that lie to the northern Euopean citizens.

  • tnxplant

    Re Barbara Peters and the Fed Gov incentivizing hiring through tax breaks:

    This idea has been in place for as long as I can remember. It does not work. “Here’s an incentive for hiring, but if you use these criteria, we will use taxpayer money to sue you.”

    I don’t know how else to say it. It does not work. It has never worked. It won’t ever work.

    In the mid 1980s my spouse began dealing with targeted job tax credits. It was a lot of money, and it did NOT impact hiring decisions then or in the years since.

  • Barbara Peters

    tnxplant – we have to try something. we are spent out on stimulus – what else is there?

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    I’m coming late to this discussion. My first thought is that someone (or more accurately some people) at the White House doesn’t have a clue to the politics. We all know that Obama is a complete novice; it’s so self evident. But you would think he would surround himself with savy politicos. This is an embarresment. One day trying to step in front of Congress like a little child with the red faced out come of having to reschedule on Boehner’s fatherlyt “no.” Do these people at the White House think two or three moves ahead? The answer is obviously NO! And we trust these keystone cops to put out an economic policy?

  • Barbara Peters

    Boehner was fine with the address on the night of the debate until Rush Limbaugh called him out on it. If the Republicans take the White House we can look forward to a country run by Rush Limbaugh. I do not like that man’s policies and politics. This isnt the White House looking like the Keystone Cops, it is the Speaker and his staff.

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Barbara, God bless you, but it wasn’t Boehner who had to reschedule. It wasn’t Boehner who had pie all over his face at the end of the day. Your claim that it was Rush Limbaugh is ridiculous, but even so doesn’t someone at the White House check with Congress before they put out a statement? Obviously they were trying to one-up the Republicans with their initial date. Didn’t they realize that like in chess when one makes a move, the other is allowed a counter move? This White House doesn’t have a clue. I have never seen anything so ameteur.

  • Greta

    Just reading over the comments and post gives a clear example of the huge gap between the parties and between liberals and conservatives. The major differences are clearly that one side, the liberals, still believe in and want ever larger government controlling everything in our lives and the other side wants government out of everything except for what they are allowed by the strict reading of the actual text of the constitution. It is a debate that cannot end in compromise any more than favoring abortion rights and thinking one can the get to heaven. The liberal believes somehow that putting together a massive government program for the poor will help the dead infant and that it will somehow make up for the death they desired. The liberal does not want to go by the actual text of the constitution, but favors finding words not there like privacy and from those words not there, grant rights to murder and sodomy. The liberal wants to take an amendment written after the civil war specifically to stop the injustice to freed blacks and pretend it somehow has special meaning to allow special rights to selected behavior choices. The liberal equates skin color which we are born with and is not chosen to having same sex attraction and choosing to act on that weakness and uses the 14th amendment to then decide that sodomy and hetrosexual sex are equal and both deserve to be granted the rights of matrimony by decree. However, they cannot seem to answer why based on the very same law and logic, that incest, poligomy, or any other behavior choice of those born with other weaknesses are not allowed.

    Logic and liberalism do not work which drives the conservative up the wall. Some, mostly on the left, believe that the solution is to have compromise which ends in the same place they want the country to go. gay rights compromise does not end with having a gay person not sent to jail or beaten, but demands that all people are forced to recognize that lifestyle as equal to marriage between one man and one woman with anyone who denies this liberal truth in jail as a bigot. Compromise on race issues does not stop where MLK wanted with everyone being judged on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin, but must have special rights granted based on skin color and the wide use of the race card that anyone who disagrees with them on liberal policies is a bigot and guilty of hate crimes. Liberals do not really want quality healthcare for all, but in reality will not see an end until the federal government controls every aspect of our healthcare. Conservatives want the government out of healthcare realizing that the medicare program and big government started sending healthcare over the cliff. Of course medicare came about with an expansion on the other government controlled program social security which used another lie about the constitution in the wide expansion of the commerce clause. Once that lie was allowed and we had social security ruling to allow a very small wedge, the liberal drove their constitutional wrecking ball into high gear. One reading of the minimal social security bill passed compared to what we have today tied to that small bill shows what a liberal big government lover does to something when they get their foot in the door. A vote to go back to the bill as passed under FDR and everything that was piled on after that bill be repealed. Or how about going back to the size of government in even 1996 after Clinton’s first term and locking the government size and expense at that forever… How is that for a compromise folks? Compromise with the liberal is like inviting the most angry and depraved mother in law to come and live with you on a permanent basis after she has discovered the fountain of youth. Once in your house, life as you thought you knew it will end forever.

  • tnxplant

    Re Barbara #32 -

    Why continue to do the things that have been shown time and again not to work? We could not spend our way out of trouble via stimulus funds, and both political parties bear responsibility for the mess we’re in.

    We are so far into a command economy that there may be no turning back. If we as a nation and our leaders would consider allowing even a slightly free economy by eliminating onerous regulatory agencies, we might see the pendulum swing a bit in the other direction.

    Unfortunately, the Iron Law of Bureaucracy holds true:

    “In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.” – Jerry Pournelle

  • Barbara Peters

    Corporations are making record profits so I do not understand how eliminating regulatory agencies will increase demand and create jobs. If there are excessive regulations that hinder demand and job growth then there should be revisions and modifications. Our system of government allows for change and provides ways for us to redress grievances.
    As for the “demon liberal” rant in #36, I don’t see the relevance or connection to anything that has been discussed here. I will say though that our democracy is based on compromise and the only alternatives to compromise are dysfunction or tyranny

  • Barbara Peters

    Manny #35- According to Politico the WH did check and Boehner’s office said okay until Rush Limbaugh weighed in – Limbaugh and whatever group he is a front for are in control of the Republican party and will control the WH and the country if that party wins in 2012: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62505.html
    I’m not comfortable with this and I think it does not bode well for our democracy.

  • Barbara Peters

    Sorry I didnt mean to suggest that the Politico story supports my statement regarding Mr. Limbaugh’s control over the Republican party – that is my opinion based only on my observation. I put the link in the wrong place. The Politico story reports on the chronology regarding the timing and scheduling of the President’s job speech.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Greta, you’re right. There is a huge gap between liberals and conservatives—or even between liberals, and anyone who happens to disagree with any of their pet causes.

    And, when all else fails, they blame Rush Limbaugh. Or Sarah Palin. Or Michelle Bachman. Or “big corporations”. Logic doesn’t seem capable of bridging the gap, anymore.

    A poster on another thread suggested that, given the many abortions in this country, that liberals, feeling guilty about the blood on their hands, but unable to admit such guilt, have become more and more obsessed with pushing their agenda on us, if only to prove to themselves they were right!

    She suggested that a national day of penance, a Rachel’s project, might be the one thng that could shake them out of this; I’m inclined to agree.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Blame Limbaugh, blame “corporations”, tax the rich (um, we’re running out of “rich” people to tax, guys; and taxes affect lower, and middle income people, too.)

    (Also, re the “tax the rich” mantra—nice way to push class warfare, there; that’ll really help the economy—sarc.)

    I believe a national day of penance—maybe even a penitential week—is the only thing that can bring us back to sanity, at the moment.

  • SKAY

    I find it interesting that Mr. Buffet’s company has a large amount of back taxes to pay(and is working it out slowly)–yet he is telling everyone else that he has no problems paying higher income taxes and they should do the same.

    Mr. Buffet seems to be an advisor to Obama–along with George Soros.