Fact check on Obama's claims (Jobs Speech Yesterday)

[JeffreyS]

Yes the new deal took longer than one would like but clearly worked.  The stimulus have been hit or miss mostly due to the lack of strings attached to the money.  Basically we have gone from free fall to slow growth in the two and half years and we could have done better even though most of the world has done worse.

[ChriswUfGator]

The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is tariffs...

[manasia]

The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is tariffs...

Yea Chris no one wants to talk about those at all.

Here is a WSJ Take:

A Tariff-Reduction Plan for U.S. Jobs
Eliminating duties that U.S. producers pay on imported raw materials would instantly boost competitiveness.
BY DANIEL IKENSON

In his address to Congress Thursday night, President Obama offered a tepid endorsement of the idea that reducing trade barriers could help put Americans back to work. But if the president is serious about creating jobs, he must take more decisive actions to spur trade and investment and reject protectionism. That means convincing trade-hostile Democrats of the merits of the long-pending bilateral trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which he plans to submit to Congress this month or next. He will also need to steer Congress away from inciting an unwelcome trade war with China.

As important as ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576546910548548544.html

[ChriswUfGator]

Ridiculous.

Republican Strategy 101:

1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.

[manasia]

Ridiculous.

Republican Strategy 101:

1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.

I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.

[manasia]

Ridiculous.

Republican Strategy 101:

1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.

I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.

If US free-trade policy is protectionism, I guess I was reading the wrong definition.

[ChriswUfGator]

Ridiculous.

Republican Strategy 101:

1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.

I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.

We don't have any, is primarily why. Or very few anyway.

For whatever reason, our government is content to hand this country's wealth off to China, Mexico, etc., as long as their deep-pocketed corporate constituents are profiting from it. Jobs shipped overseas at $0.50/hr, everything we buy here is made somewhere else, and it's been that way since the early/mid 1990s. This can't go on forever, these huge trade deficeits. At some point, we have to make something here and sell it somewhere else, if for no other reason than eventually our currency will collapse. The economy, by and large, already has collapsed, and is not improving.

[manasia]

Ridiculous.

Republican Strategy 101:

1: Identify the Cause of the Problem
2: If it makes you money, lie, and claim the true reason is that we failed to embrace the bad idea hard enough.
3: Wash, rinse, repeat.

Now is the time for protectionist policies, not free-trade. Free trade has only served as global-scale wealth redistribution, I'm not sure you could objectively argue it has really achieved any of its promised benefits. And it has gutted, and continues to gut, this country's economy.

I agree, I have not seen any policies that we have that are protectionist in this country.

We don't have any, is primarily why. Or very few anyway.

For whatever reason, our government is content to hand this country's wealth off to China, Mexico, etc., as long as their deep-pocketed corporate constituents are profiting from it. Jobs shipped overseas at $0.50/hr, everything we buy here is made somewhere else, and it's been that way since the early/mid 1990s. This can't go on forever, these huge trade deficeits. At some point, we have to make something here and sell it somewhere else, if for no other reason than eventually our currency will collapse. The economy, by and large, already has collapsed, and is not improving.

+1 Man, I have been saying this for years.

[buckethead]

You guys should have voted for Pat Buchannan instead of Bill Clinton.

I agree with the need for protectionist policies.

A bit of isolationism could go a long way, as well.

Free trade is a misnomer, btw. It does not exist.

[ChriswUfGator]

You guys should have voted for Pat Buchannan instead of Bill Clinton.

I agree with the need for protectionist policies.

A bit of isolationism could go a long way, as well.

Free trade is a misnomer, btw. It does not exist.

I agree NAFTA sucked, and can't for the life of me understand why Clinton signed it, let alone DADT, came down on the side of the Russians in bombing Sarejevo, etc., etc., etc. He's another one like Obama, where I don't understand why you conservatives don't absolutely love the guy. We've had a spate of Democrat conservatives lately, and all the good little Repubs hate them just because they have that "D" next to their name, forget the fact that they turn out to be better conservatives than any of the Republican ticket. Much to my infinite chagrin. We're enduring another one now, I'm shocked you guys aren't lining up to give Obama the Republican nomination frankly.

[buckethead]

It's bankers and the MIC calling the shots. President Obama is just playing the hand he was dealt.

Vote Ron Paul in 2012. Forget all the rest of the crap you hear about this or that.

Job #1: End the wars

Job #2: Defeat the Banksters

Everything else is fluff. We can hash out those things afterwards. Until Jobs 1 & 2 are handled, nothing else will happen. I would vote for Bernie Sanders to take on the same job, but he isn't running.

[Tacachale]

^Then we'd just get even more private money dumped into 527s to attack candidates obliquely from the dark. They're much worse than anything official campaigns ever do.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

Vote Ron Paul in 2012. Forget all the rest of the crap you hear about this or that.

i hate to come off like a single-issue voter, but every other candidate would have to be really awful before i'd vote for someöne so intent on criminalizing abortion.

actually, scratch the single-issue bit--i decided to do a bit ov quick research before posting this comment, and the more i see, the more goddamn terrifyïng ron paul is in almost every way.  if i liked the idea ov a worrisomely religious (he opposes separation ov church and state) racist (he denies it, but it looks to me like he is) president, i wouldn't've hated GWB so much.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

KKH, please tell me which one looks like a racist.....







could be all of them....

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

it's not about the way he looks, it's about the opinions he published in his newsletter (yes, he said it wasn't him when the excrement hit the air conditioning, but it turns out he'd been expressing similar views in articles that he definitely wrote for years).

edit:  oh, right, 'it looks to me like he is'.  that's not the same thing as 'he looks to me like he is', and actually means 'the evidence i have seen strongly suggests that he is'.