No ratings bump for Obama after Jobs speech

[Little-Acorn]

Hardly a surprise, since there was nothing in the speech beyond "more of the same".

More massive government spending.

Tax increases.

More govt regulations and restrictions.

Soak the rich and take their money.

Trust the government, we're here to help you.

(Is it Nov. 2012 yet?)

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/sep/13/obama-speech-didnt-boost-approval/

Obama speech didn't boost approval

by Stephen Dinan
Published on September 13, 2011

President Obama's major jobs speech last week has not moved the needle on his approval ratings, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

The three-day tracking average stood at 43 percent approval on Sept. 8, and remains stuck there as of Monday. Disapproval, meanwhile, has ticked up 1 percentage point from 49 percent to 50 percent.

Mr. Obama's speech, to a joint session of Congress, was designed to lay out a vision for boosting the economy while still trying to tackle ballooning deficits and debt.

[fj1200]

Shocking!

[Missileman]

Shocking!

I like how he's touting his bill as all ideas that have bi-partisan support. I guess he doesn't grasp that most everyone would realize that if that were true, he wouldn't have to be pushing congress to pass it. The jackass also included a "trigger" that will raise taxes if the super commitee can't find the 450 billion to pay for his fiasco. I say he's got about as much chance of getting his bill passed as he does of getting re-elected in 2012.

[red states rule]

Why would anyone get excited over more of the same thing?

Obama is in over his head and we are paying the price right now

However Obama is a great community organizer and he showing he should be in that job as he travels the country trying to sell this crappy bill to the voters

[Little-Acorn]

a "trigger" that will raise taxes if the super commitee can't find the 450 billion to pay for his fiasco.

[doubletake]

That's news to me!

Got a link or reference?

I thought that the whole point of the Supercommittee, was that if they couldn't agree on ways to do the spending cuts, automatic SPENDING REDUCTIONS would happen. That's the only way Congressional Republicans would let it pass.

And now Obama is trying to dismantle the centerpiece (spending cuts, no tax increases) of the entire Deficit Limit agreement???

(jaw dragging on floor)

[Little-Acorn]

[doubletake]

That's news to me!

Got a link or reference?

I thought that the whole point of the Supercommittee, was that if they couldn't agree on ways to do the spending cuts, automatic SPENDING REDUCTIONS would happen. That's the only way Congressional Republicans would let it pass.

And now Obama is trying to dismantle the centerpiece (spending cuts, no tax increases) of the entire Deficit Limit agreement???

(jaw dragging on floor)

Sum bitch.

It's true.

My God, this man has balls the size of medicine balls.

I did a search for articles describing what Missileman said above (that if the supercommittee can't find enough spending cuts, Obama's "jobs" bill will cause automatic tax increases).

Came up empty at first... until I included the word "trigger" in the Google search.

Then this turned up:

-----------------------------------------

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/republicans-reject-taxes-on-the-rich-to-pay-for-jobs-bill.php

Republicans Reject Taxes On The Rich To Pay For Jobs Bill — But That’s Not Obama’s Plan

Brian Beutler | September 13, 2011, 10:42AM

Top Republicans in the House and Senate put the kibosh Tuesday on President Obama's plan to pay for a $447 billion jobs bill by closing tax loopholes and ending tax credits benefiting wealthy Americans. But the fine print in Obama's jobs bill actually treats the tax increases as an enforcement mechanism -- a trigger -- and the jury's still out on whether they'll accept the actual pay-for in the jobs bill, which tasks the joint deficit Super Committee with finding the offsets.

"The half-trillion dollar tax hike the White House proposed yesterday will not only face a tough road in Congress among Republicans, but from Democrats too," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning.

At a press conference at RNC headquarters, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) echoed this view.

But if you read the jobs bill, it states in the dense language of legislation that the tax increases only take effect if the new Super Committee doesn't find an additional $450 billion in deficit reduction, beyond the $1.2 trillion they're tasked with passing.

"If a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than "$1,650,000,000,000" in deficit reduction as provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of this Act is enacted by January 15, 2012, then the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 made by subtitles A through E of title IV of the American Jobs Act of 2011, shall not be in effect for any taxable year."

In other words, the White House's first choice would be for the Super Committee to "go big" and find much more deficit reduction than they're obligated to by the debt limit law. And they would count those additional savings toward the cost of the jobs bill. But if the panel can't do more than the bare minimum, the tax increases would go into effect.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/sk091411dAPR20110913114515.jpg