Early Draft of Obama's Jobs Speech

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,525
Reaction score
17,533
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
An unofficial early draft of Obama's Jobs Speech, and one that is much more honest than the end product he delivered.

Members of Congress, honored guests, my fellow Americans:

Jobs are the No. 1 priority of the American people. Jobs are the No. 1 priority of my administration's rhetoric. Jobs have not been the No. 1 priority of my administration's policies, however. Let me explain why.

A British statesman—I believe it was Harold Macmillan—was asked what he intended to do if elected prime minister. He answered, roughly, "Deal with matters that arise." That has not been my approach.

Elections have consequences. We mastered the use of slogans and imagery and won the presidency. Now the power is ours to choose our agenda, and we chose not to be distracted by matters that arise—say, the country's economic crisis. We chose instead to pursue the things that we know should be pursued.

These things are called shibboleths—badges of identity that signify us as "progressives" and entitle us to a sense of superiority. One is nationalization of health care, an emblem of our "caring."

One on which we've made less progress is the displacement of fossil fuels in favor of "green energy," at much higher cost. Accompanying this shibboleth are related shibboleths—about "energy independence," about "global warming"—that, like all shibboleths, are impervious to examination.

Another is union power—labor is good, management is bad. I could go on. These shibboleths are so important that, as you will have seen by now, we will not allow them to be impeded or delayed by matters that merely arise, such as the public's crying need for jobs. So we have blocked drilling for fossil fuels in as many places as possible, protecting Americans from the jobs that would be created.

So we have sacrificed jobs in order to punish Boeing for building a plant in South Carolina that would employ nonunion workers.

So we enacted a health-care plan whose unimaginable complexity and cost can only weigh negatively on every private-sector employer.

I have chosen to pursue this agenda, notwithstanding its untimeliness in the face of matters that have arisen (i.e., the economic crisis), in part because I'm comfortable with it.

Consider my background. I don't know much about business and, frankly, don't care to. You see, I have a self-reinforcing image of Barack Obama. I am high-minded. Business people are greedy and, somehow, lesser. I stay focused on that.

Some might say, "Had I known this I never would have voted for you." A) You weren't listening carefully; and B) that was my intention, my art. To conceal—for instance, by dropping one's Gs—is what it means to be an effective left-wing ideologue in America these days.

I am not anti-business. I get a supreme sense of satisfaction when business leaders approach me and, in a deferential manner, ask for subsidies and regulatory favors that will determine whether their companies succeed or fail. Like solar subsidies. This is the kind of job creation I'm interested in.

My administration has taken flak because of our "investment" of tax dollars in a solar company that last week filed for bankruptcy. Don't be misled. If such companies were profitable and could survive without subsidies, they would not be fit objects of government charity, nor would their leaders approach me with a deferential mien.

Their dependency is what makes them loyal constituents, generous with a campaign donation, willing to go on CNBC and praise our policies. You can always count on me for job creation when it means taking money from independent businesses, those that are answering the call of the marketplace, and giving it to dependent businesses, those that are answering the call of government.

In closing, let us recognize that an election is approaching. The time is upon us when my administration must ratchet up its rhetoric to make it sound like your agenda (jobs, growth) is my agenda.

Indeed, I will begin tonight by junking the more revealing passages of this draft speech and pretending that I place a higher value on job-creating pragmatism than on my progressive shibboleths.

This, I hope, will cause you to re-elect me. Thank you for listening.


Jenkins: Obama's Jobs Speech—an Early Draft - WSJ.com
 

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
82,769
Reaction score
22,290
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama came out swinging Monday in his first public remarks since S&P downgrade of U.S. creditworthiness, congratulating Americans on achieving a moral victory by redistributing the unfairly gained superior AAA rating to the less fortunate and more deserving countries, some of whom don't even have an alphabet.

Calling the loss of an 'A' a "shared sacrifice" and "exercise in global economic justice," Obama went on to explain that our loss is someone else's gain and that we must have less so they have more is an idea worth fighting for...
 

FactFinder

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
207
Points
83
This ***Independent*** believes that Obama came out with a reasonable middle ground approach. I have voted for Conservatives since Reagan but they have become so out of touch and so wall streetish that I don't see a candidate in their camp that has any idea what 'common sense' is.
 
OP
boedicca

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,525
Reaction score
17,533
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Perhaps instead of trying to find facts, you should get a clue.
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
This ***Independent*** believes that Obama came out with a reasonable middle ground approach. I have voted for Conservatives since Reagan but they have become so out of touch and so wall streetish that I don't see a candidate in their camp that has any idea what 'common sense' is.
Other than the Employer Payroll Tax Cut he mentioned there was Nothing new in his Speech, and I am sorry it's not Middle of the Road. It's More spread the Wealth Government spending. Another Round of Rewarding Unions, with some Tax Cuts thrown in to make it look middle of the road.

The Real catch, He claims it will be paid for, but puts the heavy lifting of paying for it on congress, and suggested they do so by Taxing the Rich, and raising Capital Gains Taxes.

Sorry that's not Middle of the Road, and it's not Responsible. If Obama had a real plan, that was really paid for, it would include details on what cuts, or Tax Increases were needed to pay for it.

This was Nothing but show, The President and his Staff came up with a Bill that they know Republicans can not vote for with out Betraying their no new Big spending Bills Promises, That if they do pass lets Obama Doll out Billions in Hand outs, and Contracts to UNION workers who are of course funding his Re-election.

Total Joke of a President.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
I feel like someone should point out that this isn't so much an "unofficial early draft" as a deliberate fabrication. Everyone realizes this, right? The WSJ writer suggests it was given to him by an "unreliable source", and the comments refer to it as "brilliant satire". It's not real.
 
OP
boedicca

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,525
Reaction score
17,533
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I feel like someone should point out that this isn't so much an "unofficial early draft" as a deliberate fabrication. Everyone realizes this, right? The WSJ writer suggests it was given to him by an "unreliable source", and the comments refer to it as "brilliant satire". It's not real.

Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Jeebus, get a sense of humor.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I feel like someone should point out that this isn't so much an "unofficial early draft" as a deliberate fabrication. Everyone realizes this, right? The WSJ writer suggests it was given to him by an "unreliable source", and the comments refer to it as "brilliant satire". It's not real.

Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?
Really? Nahh. Can't be. You're making shit up. I just checked.
 

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
I feel like someone should point out that this isn't so much an "unofficial early draft" as a deliberate fabrication. Everyone realizes this, right? The WSJ writer suggests it was given to him by an "unreliable source", and the comments refer to it as "brilliant satire". It's not real.

Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Jeebus, get a sense of humor.
It surprised me a bit to realize how often this happens:

PolitiFact | A service of the St. Petersburg Times
PolitiFact | Obama's Columbia 'thesis' is all fiction, dreamed up by blogger

The basic formula is this:

1) Some basically well-meaning person writes something factually incorrect, labels it satire, and posts it online. For example, Mathew Avitabile writes that Obama's Columbia thesis (which doesn't exist) rails against "plutocratic thugs".

2) People read the information, and mostly recognize it as satire.

3) Some people don't recognize the satire, or decide to deliberately spread falsehoods, or think that everyone will recognize it as satire even if it's not labeled as such. They use the internet to transmit the piece without labeling it as satire.

4) The piece is retransmitted as fact so many times that its origin becomes difficult to identify.

5) Lots of people read this fiction as fact. Even major media personalities can vouch for the falsehood, as Limbaugh did when he cited Avitabile's piece as evidence of Obama's disdain for the Constitution.

Since you had taken us through step three, I felt it was worth taking a few seconds to label satire as satire.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?

That's not funny!
 

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
25,071
Reaction score
5,338
Points
280
Location
Washington
This ***Independent*** believes that Obama came out with a reasonable middle ground approach. I have voted for Conservatives since Reagan but they have become so out of touch and so wall streetish that I don't see a candidate in their camp that has any idea what 'common sense' is.
My neighbor who has about zero interest in politics had the same opinion. Most Americans are looking for reasonable solutions to our problems. They want a balanced approach to the deficit problem, not spending cuts that put the burden just on the middle class and the poor. They want better public education, not a plan to replace it with private education. They want to save Medicare and Social Security, not a plan to dismantle it. Most of all, they want a government that actually works, one that's based on rationalism not ideology.
 

Oldstyle

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
31,206
Reaction score
4,926
Points
1,160
Location
Florida
This ***Independent*** believes that Obama came out with a reasonable middle ground approach. I have voted for Conservatives since Reagan but they have become so out of touch and so wall streetish that I don't see a candidate in their camp that has any idea what 'common sense' is.
My neighbor who has about zero interest in politics had the same opinion. Most Americans are looking for reasonable solutions to our problems. They want a balanced approach to the deficit problem, not spending cuts that put the burden just on the middle class and the poor. They want better public education, not a plan to replace it with private education. They want to save Medicare and Social Security, not a plan to dismantle it. Most of all, they want a government that actually works, one that's based on rationalism not ideology.
Gee, Flopper if you neighbor wants a "government that actually works, one that's based on rationalism not ideology" then he must REALLY hate the Obama Administration...right?:lol:
 
OP
boedicca

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,525
Reaction score
17,533
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
I feel like someone should point out that this isn't so much an "unofficial early draft" as a deliberate fabrication. Everyone realizes this, right? The WSJ writer suggests it was given to him by an "unreliable source", and the comments refer to it as "brilliant satire". It's not real.

Did you know that gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Jeebus, get a sense of humor.
It surprised me a bit to realize how often this happens:

PolitiFact | A service of the St. Petersburg Times
PolitiFact | Obama's Columbia 'thesis' is all fiction, dreamed up by blogger

The basic formula is this:

1) Some basically well-meaning person writes something factually incorrect, labels it satire, and posts it online. For example, Mathew Avitabile writes that Obama's Columbia thesis (which doesn't exist) rails against "plutocratic thugs".

2) People read the information, and mostly recognize it as satire.

3) Some people don't recognize the satire, or decide to deliberately spread falsehoods, or think that everyone will recognize it as satire even if it's not labeled as such. They use the internet to transmit the piece without labeling it as satire.

4) The piece is retransmitted as fact so many times that its origin becomes difficult to identify.

5) Lots of people read this fiction as fact. Even major media personalities can vouch for the falsehood, as Limbaugh did when he cited Avitabile's piece as evidence of Obama's disdain for the Constitution.

Since you had taken us through step three, I felt it was worth taking a few seconds to label satire as satire.


I bet you thought the snuff film about Bush was actual news footage.
 

AquaAthena

Law and Order-Now
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
16,669
Reaction score
13,601
Points
2,415
Location
Central Coast
"My administration has taken flak because of our "investment" of tax dollars in a solar company that last week filed for bankruptcy. Don't be misled. If such companies were profitable and could survive without subsidies, they would not be fit objects of government charity, nor would their leaders approach me with a deferential mien."

Just the beginning of things to come with Obama's policies sinking our country into bankruptcy should he not listen to Congress asking him to take his lead foot off of existing companies and businesses who are barely above water. *-*

"Solyndra, a major solar manufacturer that has been the subject of a House GOP probe regarding a $535 million DOE loan guarantee, is filing for bankruptcy and laying off 1,100 workers — a step sure to raise even more awkward questions about the Obama administration’s green jobs agenda.

"The administration has touted the company as a successful recipient of stimulus funds, and its Fremont, Calif., manufacturing plant received a visit just last year from President Barack Obama.

"But on Wednesday, the company announced that it has suspended its manufacturing operations and intends to file a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief.

“Regulatory and policy uncertainties in recent months created significant near-term excess supply and price erosion,” Solyndra President and CEO Brian Harrison said in a statement. “Raising incremental capital in this environment was not possible. This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate.”


Read more: DOE-backed solar firm files for bankruptcy - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com







DOE-backed solar firm files for bankruptcy - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top