Following his recent vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama took some time away from his preparations for a “very specific” jobs speech, due sometime next week, to sit down with NBC’s Brian Williams and discuss his economic agenda.
Obama: Well, look, we anticipated that the recovery was slowing. The economy is still growing, but it’s not growing as fast as it needs to. I’ve got things right now in–before Congress that we should move immediately, and I’ve said so before I went on vacation and I’ll keep on saying it when I–now that I’m back. We should be passing legislation that helps small businesses get credit, that eliminates capital gains taxes so that they have more incentive to invest right now. There are a whole host of measures that we could take, no single element of which is a magic bullet, but cumulatively could start continuing to build momentum for the recovery.
Pretty familiar talking points, yes? Which is why this clip is so fascinating — it was filmed on August 29 of last year. Feeling that “recovery” “momentum” yet? Obama did speak today, though, to announce his new choice for chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Here’s what he said:
Obama: Next week, I will be laying out a series of steps that Congress can take immediately to put more money in the pockets of working families and middle-class families, to make it easier for small businesses to hire people, to put construction crews to work rebuilding our nation’s roads and railways and airports, and all the other measures that can help to grow this economy. These are bipartisan ideas that ought to be the kind of proposals that everybody can get behind, no matter what your political affiliation might be. So my hope and expectation is that we can put country before party and get something done for the American people.
Same talking points. Same crummy economy. Can’t wait for the speech!
On my short list of especially annoying phrases is "put more money in the pockets of " etc.
I don't want you putting anything in my pocket. I want you to just stop taking so much OUT.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am glad that you are bashing the speech before you even hear it. Such an open mind.
And we wonder why the two parties can't come to an agreement on anything. People like Andrew Stiles don't listen and don't compromise because they think they already have all the answers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFunny.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour whining denotes pain and anger and I delight in it.
If anything in America deserves contempt prior to investigation, it's an Obama speech.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour comment is just plain weird.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeird is perhaps the most appropriate response to your attempt to defend the Obama record.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh get off your high horse. Read Obama's comment and tell me there's the slightest reason to believe the speech will contain anything other than Stimulus III funneling more borrowed money to government and union crews. They don't call them trial balloons because everybody withholds judgement and feedback. Observing that Obama gives no sign of learning from past flops, that he has no clue what will actually fly in this political climate, and that this will be as dead in the water as his last budget, might even be helpful to him. If he were Bill Clinton or someone else capable of learning from his mistakes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe is not bashing the speech "before he even hears it." He's saying, based on past experience, why is it reasonable to be optimistic regarding results. Yet another Obama speech is not gonna fix our economic woes ... with or without a TelePrompter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis speeches are pretty predictable.
Someone should make a Mad Libs book based on 'em.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAhahahaha! My security phrase is "pester power." Is that what another Obama speech is?
The latest economic advisor, again from academia, is an ideologue who hasn't a clue about growing the economy nor putting America back to work...in the private sector.
His curriculum vitae is pathetic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Looks like another over-credentialed do-nothing.
I wonder if he's ever run a lemonade stand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuselemonade stands are against the law
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis whole thing plays out like a Monty Python skit: So they came up with a new plan that they called the new plan that looked pretty much like the old plan.
Small businesses can find credit if they want. They don't. They don't have customers. Why would they want to go into debt? They're not going to hire when O & Co. keep inflicting them with new regulations and drive up the cost of labor and the cost to do business.
And as far as road construction goes, although I'm sure the road construction industry will enjoy any new business, they weren't the hardest hit in the first place. Housing and commercial building was hit much harder.
But hey a worker's a worker right? So let's get those out of work financial workers shovels. Teach those retail workers to operate a backhoe. In fact, let's have a federally funded program to teach these diplaced bank tellers new skills. A job's a job.
These guys are the Keystone Kops of economics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKeynesian Kops more like it…
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is now the "O-conomy".
Now the White House is up to "Plan 9"...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse...from Outer Space?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is weird, is the persistent belief in and advocacy of an economic theory (Keynes) that over and over again shows itself to be false. Of course this is not really about ‘real economics’ but the ‘ideology’ and ‘politics of big government’.
There is an element of truth in Obama’s remarks, which Alice Hankey’s comment alludes to. Of course, Obama and his administration will not derive the correct ‘economic’ conclusion, mostly for those aforementioned ‘political’ reasons.
Putting more money in the pockets of people (i.e. having personal disposable income increase) would result in a better economy for the simple reason, that contrary to Keynesian economic theory, (G) (government spending) is not equivalent ‘economically’ to (C) (individual spending consumption).
If an increase in the money ‘put in the pockets of people’ was accompanied by an equivalent reduction in spending by the government, then it would result in a better economic situation. This would be transferring unproductive and uneconomic government spending (G) to consumer productive and economic spending (C).
However, a reduction in taxes that ‘puts more money in the pockets of people’ is not going to make much of a difference if the government just borrows the same amount to maintain its level of spending. The factors of production, that would be better utilized economically, by people having more money in their pockets, is basically, equally offset by the unproductive, uneconomic spending of the government. (The increase in C is offset by the same increase in G thus no net difference.)
If Keynesian economic theory was true, the U.S. economy should be ‘booming’ right now, after all does not GDP =C+G+I+(X-IM)? With G (government spending) at the highest levels in the history of the U.S., the GDP should also be at its highest level, which it obviously is not, which just shows that Keynesian economic theory belongs in the ‘dustbin’ of history.
In the period of 1920-1923 government spending was cut in half, taxes were greatly reduced across the board, and the unemployment rate went from 12% to 2.4% in three years. Additionally the deficits were eliminated. Indeed, the government at the time actually paid down some of the national debt!
(For those interested, do a Google search of ‘Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920’)
The answer to the present economic problems is here! Keynesian economic theory cannot account for why this great result occurred! After all, should not a reduction in G (government spending) result in a lower GDP not a higher GDP? The Keynesians will counter that the decrease in G was equivalent to the increase in C. However, this still does not account for why the GDP was far greater when this transfer happened. After all, should not the quantitative reduction in G with a corresponding and equivalent quantitative increase in C result in, no net difference in the GDP? GDP=C+G+I+(X-IM)
This is proof that Keynesian economic theory is not tenable. The only way that 1920-1923 result could have happened is, that the quantitative reduction of G (government spending) to the same quantitative increase in C (individual consumption spending) ‘increased the total economic output (the GDP), which according to the theory should not have occurred. G is supposedly equivalent to C, but 1920-1923 proves this to be false.
Government ‘plans’ will not create prosperity, a lack of government plans will. Reduce the government’s interference and ‘crowding out’ of the free market, and growth and prosperity will return. 1920-1923 proves this to be true.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm going to listen to the speech with a Slurpee in my hand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse