Joseph Palermo: Obama's jobs speech "will sound a lot like a tiny mouse trying to make a loud roar"

[highplainsdem]

Scathing column at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/obama-jobs-speech-2012_b_935432.html

President Obama's much anticipated speech outlining his jobs agenda for the 2012 election year will sound a lot like a tiny mouse trying to make a loud roar. Instead of clarity, we'll get hedging; instead of "bold," we'll get wishy-washy. The principal aim of the speech will be to divert attention away from his administration's failure to hold to account the Wall Street perpetrators of the housing bubble/mortgage scam that ransacked the middle class.

-snip-

The president has already shown that his administration will offer little help to the 14.6 million Americans who've been stuck with mortgages based on fraudulent real estate prices. His administration's attempts to stymie New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's efforts to go after mortgage fraud is just more evidence that Obama is not serious about addressing the crisis. Schneiderman represents the last hope that some of the crooks on Wall Street might at long last be confronted. He believes the current deal the Obama Justice Department and other state attorneys general are working out with the giant banks is far too generous and gives up far too much, (which pretty much sums up Obama's "negotiating" style). The Obama "deal" allows the most corrupt banks to purchase immunity from prosecution.

The Democrats have an invertebrate as their leader. Or maybe he desired this outcome from the start, an elaborate hoax designed to channel the populist anger away from his patrons on Wall Street.

The heroic efforts of progressives in Wisconsin and Ohio are getting little more than lip service from the Obama administration which is intent on coddling banks and speculators even in the face of mounting evidence from whistle blowers, reporters, and even members of Congress that the criminality on Wall Street is far more pervasive than previously imagined. The mortgage fraud crisis must be staunched before there can be any serious "jobs" program. But Obama won't go there. He wants Wall Street's campaign cash and thinks his soft touch toward the banks will shake it loose.

-snip-

The link in the third paragraph goes to Robert Scheer's "Amnesty for the Indefensible" column, which has already been posted here.

[Kolesar]

1. "fraudulent real estate prices" -- laughable

I sold my house for $179,000.
Does that mean I committed a "fraud"?

[Orrex]

3. I don't know. Did you?

I missed the part of the OP that claimed that every home is fraudulent. Can you point it out to me?


Thanks!

[Kolesar]

4. Second paragraph eom

[Orrex]

5. Still not seeing it.

I see this, however:

The president has already shown that his administration will offer little help to the 14.6 million Americans who've been stuck with mortgages based on fraudulent real estate prices.

Is that the part that you're misreading as a statement that all home sales are fraudulent?

[Orrex]

2. Joe Palermo is too damn old to be coaching college football

Hardy har har!

[Solomon]

6. cant see for the life of me why people here feel

The need to constantly search for bad opinions on Obama from nobodies and then post them here. I just don't get the point other than trying to destroy morale.

If you don't want to vote for Obama, then don't fucking vote for him.

I guess that's not enuf.

[Fumesucker]

7. It's a political discussion board..

Strangely enough, people discuss politics here.

[dionysus]

12. to get people not to vote for him?

:shrug:

[spanone]

8. how the fuck does he know?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. If you see water run down hill often enough, you learn to stand

upward from the spillage. I think many commentators are hoping the President will avoid that which is all too easily predictable and do something strong, and pointing out that the style and tactics he is best known for are no longer crafty surprises but exactly what is expected of him might lead him to think outside the box he seems to keep his thinking in. That box is already crowded with lots of dogma and religion, there is not much room for an idea to stretch out and grow.
It would be good if he went strong and bold. It would be good to win the election, and also good to take full advantage of the election season in terms of rhetorical points scored and Republican talking points roundly defeated to pave the road to a better second term. The 'milquetoast centrist' routine might win, might not, but it sure will not make use of all that could be done while running for reelection.
But again, how do we know the sun will rise in the morning? Well, it does not really rise, and we are not promised the morning, but we still 'know the sun will rise'. I can also identify a duck just by the way a duck looks. Could be a small goose in disguise, but really, I know it is a duck.

[Bragi]

9. The Repugs are now "framing" the speech so it fails

The political problem with announcing many weeks ahead of time that you plan to make a big announcement is that your political opponents will use the time to "frame" the event and the issues so as to make sure that whatever is announced is anti-climatic, greeted with predictable scorn and seen as a great failure.

Which is what's happening now.

Meanwhile, the people who might actually support the President's policy direction are left unable to say much of anything in support of policies that may or may not be announced in the promised speech, since they don't know what those policies might be. They just get to say "wait and see" which isn't exactly a great counter-argument.

This not particularly good communications strategy confirms my view that the Obama White House, oddly, isn't all that good at political communications. I think that is a big part of the President's political weakness.

(My first hint of this was when I first learned that most of the benefits of Obama's health care reform won't start reaching people until 2014. Hello, that's two years AFTER the election! What's with that?)

[Modern_Matthew]

19. It also annoys me that transcripts of entire speeches go to the media hours before they're given. nt

[SidDithers]

10. Palermo has seen the speech?...nt

Sid

[ProSense]

11. Here's something the adminstration is already

doing that Palermo could have written about:

Public Works Program! EPA Specifically Hiring Unemployed for Great Lakes Restoration

Seriously, speculative outrage is really lame.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Yes, that will provide jobs for 'at least 20 people'

"As part of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will spend $6 million to hire unemployed people to work on a variety of projects related to cleaning up the Great Lakes.
The $6 million available from the EPA is specified for projects that both restore the lakes and provide jobs for at least 20 out-of-work people." http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20110825/OPINION01/108250316/Great-Lakes-funds-will-help-put-jobless-work?odyssey=mod

The point the OP makes is that we need big projects. At least 20 people. Do you really think that needs touting in a major speech? 20 jobs? Oh, sorry. 'At least 20'. Could be 30 I guess. Now that would put a dent in things. Michigan alone has around 500,000 unemployed, give or take 20 or 30.

[ProSense]

16. Let me help.

"The point the OP makes is that we need big projects. At least 20 people. Do you really think that needs touting in a major speech? 20 jobs? Oh, sorry. 'At least 20'. Could be 30 I guess. Now that would put a dent in things. Michigan alone has around 500,000 unemployed, give or take 20 or 30."

The funding isn't to provide 20 jobs, it's to fund projects that will provide at least 20 jobs. That means if a project creates 20 jobs and needs $500,000 in funding, it will be eligible.

It's one initiative, a great one, and more like it is needed.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Ah, so you are saying it could be as many as 240 jobs, well then!

Pro, we all know the funding is for projects. That is how it works. So, if your take on it is correct, at 500k per 20 jobs, 6 million total, 20 X 12 is 240. Half a million unemployed in Michigan alone.
I agree it is a good initiative, but it is also small and regional, and it is not the answer to what needs to be said. Make a 1000 of these, that is a start. Make one, a start on a start, but face it, a national speech that is so anticipated can not hang on a handful of jobs. And that is in fact the point of the OP, that larger and bolder initiatives are needed.
We need to make millions of jobs. Not 20 not 240. Not in one region, in the whole of the nation. Not for a few, but for all. That's the point of the OP. Your counter that he should have touted a good but minor program, creating dozens of jobs, not thousands, makes his point for him yet again. Sure, this is good, and it should be praised for what it does, not just the jobs but the projects which are needed badly. But no one is going to hear about this and see it as what is needed, perhaps as a thimble when we need a gallon.
The President and company need to step up, with something more than 'we made a few jobs in one region, where millions are still out of work'. It is that simple. In many cases in life, not doing enough is the same as doing nothing. Band Aid where stitches are called for can be said to be something done, but the wound will not heal, infection will set in, and the result of the Band Aid is the same as the result of doing nothing. Give a starving person one apple, then let them go back to starving while patting one's own back for giving away an apple.

[ProSense]

18. Which is better

0 or 240?

Do you support more initiatives like this? Would you like to see the funding increased?

The point is that complaining about job creation makes no sense. Everything that can be done should be done.

[WI_DEM]

15. He must be psychic or something?