U.S. & World

Fact check: Obama's jobs plan paid for? Seems not


Return To Article
  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 11, 2011 2:16 p.m.

    Excellent article.

    It's nice to see an AP story that is not left side.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 10, 2011 9:41 p.m.

    Re: Screwdriver | 3:22 p.m. Sept. 9, 2011

    When Obama makes promises he can't keep and the American people aren't going to give him a free ride anymore.

    Obama hasn't done the Democratic Party any favors and now that the Republicans in Congress have found they can push him around they are going to make his life miserable.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Sept. 10, 2011 12:20 p.m.

    Gee, where, oh where, are all the dozens of liberal posters?

    Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?...

    Yes, there are a few but it seems when the article lays out facts that are, well, indisputable facts, the liberals see they have no ammo and run away bravely. As somebody mentioned above, even everyone's favorite, 'Pagan', is nowhere to be found here.

    One liberal poster above said that Republicans were hypocritical because these tax cuts weren't "paid for". Paid for? Since when do you have to "pay for" a tax cut? You simply sign a bill into law that says "if you paid X dollars in taxes last year, this year you will be less than X taxes". Done.

    Conservatives aren't happy because Obama's tax cuts don't take effect for a while and the spending he proposed would be paid for and won't increase the deficit will not actually be paid for and will actually increase the debt.

    All I can say is, how many days until November 2012? The guy in the Whitehouse, as well as the Dems in control of the Sentate, have clearly GOT to go.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 10, 2011 11:17 a.m.

    Tom, could you show me in my comment where I placed blame for unemployment numbers initially increasing anywhere other then on the recesion? You see B was claiming that unemployment went up just because a Democrat won the White House. That's a ridiculous statement, that's what I was responding to. You didn't understand that? I really had to spell it out for you?

    But, since you ask: the resecion will remain President Bush's fault for ever. Why in the world would you think that the truth of a situation would change with time? Oh wait, that's right, Republicans love revisionist history. You are just hoping that enough time will pass that people will forget the awful impact President Bush's policys had on this country.

    -B, yeah I wouldn't want to try to defend the statement you made about unemployment going up because a Democrat won the White House either. So of course you would just change the subject.

    The Bush tax cuts were a terrible mistake. No way should they be made permanent. Taxes, historically, fluctuate. Businesses adjust to them constantly, with confidence.

    Nothing that President Obama has done would indicate he is adverse to the private sector. Nothing.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Sept. 10, 2011 7:11 a.m.

    All infrastructure projects require a couple of year of EA planning before they can start. Congress has tied its own hands on this one with all their silly regulations. But collectivley they are to stupid to realize it.

  • B Logan, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 11:38 p.m.


    Average unemployment under Bush was 5.5%. I understand that the economy goes in cycles and that we were going into a regular contraction in the economy in 2007. I also understand that it was made worse by the financial meltdown. But seriously, businesses and markets don't expand in times of uncertainty. Obama and the Democratic party in general are adverse to the private sector. They view it as a necessary evil. Obama says and does things that constantly create uncertainty. If you were a business owner, could you be confident expanding knowing your taxes were going up? I think it was a perfect storm in 2008 and Obama took a bad situation and compounded it. The economy will get better as soon as confidence comes back. Confidence will come when tax cuts are made permanent and Obamacare is repealed.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Sept. 9, 2011 11:01 p.m.

    Mark: how many more years until it isn't Bush's fault anymore?? Your boy has made the "economic collapse" even worse. Seesh.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 10:39 p.m.

    "Unemployment started going up in 2007 when it was clear that a Democrat was coming to the White House."

    Really B? It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we were going through the worst economic collapse since the great depression. No, of course not, it was cause a Democrat was going to be president.

    Seesh. Conservatives.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Sept. 9, 2011 10:07 p.m.

    It's apparent no one so far is wondering if they're going to have a place to live next month or food next week, or a job tomorrow. Good. And nobody so far seems to need medical care or has any problems than they can't buy themselves out of. So they must all fall into the income level that worries about the President listening to Warren Buffet's suggestion that he and those making as much money as he does should pay more taxes than his secretary, whose taxes are nearly twice Mr. Buffet's. I'm happy for them all. But I and my friends do not have such luxuries, and we'd really like to see some cooperation out of Congress, if you please. It can be done, let's have it again. And in case anyone wants to know, there is a term limit--it's called the vote. We have one and will use it when we have to fire our Congressional employees.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Sept. 9, 2011 10:00 p.m.

    The stock market tanks another 300 plus points, and the beat goes on. Anyone who doesn't think he is in campaign mode is kidding themselves - and he gets free air time courtesy of American tax payers.

    Pagan - where are you? I am disappointed you haven't posted 6 times with all those liberal news releases that support your boy.

  • B Logan, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 9:23 p.m.

    It's a stupid plan. Businesses plan for what's going to happen, not a temporary tax credit. If plans like this worked, the trillion dollar 'stimulus' would have worked. Businesses know that taxes are going up in 2013 and Obamacare is coming in 2014. You can make all the 'shovel ready' projects you want, it isn't going to fix the overall problem. This is what happens when you let a community organizing lawyer and his friends mess with the economy. Unemployment started going up in 2007 when it was clear that a Democrat was coming to the White House. It won't get better until he leaves.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 6:45 p.m.

    Well Mike you changed the subject.

    So I take it you can't back up either of the claims you made in your first post. You have zero evidence that President Obama want's businessmen to "turn over all their money to HIM!", or that "raising taxes will kill all new jobs". Well I didn't think you would be able to give proof.

    As far as your "facts" in your second post those are opinions, unless you really think you have a crystal ball and can see into the future. But yeah, I would agree with you, it's unlikely the Republicans will do anything but obstruct. It really appears that they do not want to do anything to improve the economy. After all, if the economy improves President Obama is a sure thing for a second term.

    As far as your "fact" that the first stimulus cost three million jobs, as you imply, that's very arguable, and you know I can provide many sources that say you are wrong.

    Do I have $1500.00 for everyone in my family? Yeah. So what?

    I don't agree that the first stimulus was squandered money.

  • legalamerican Ogden, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 6:42 p.m.

    Don't worry Hutterite, Obama supporters don't have the ability to comprehend the cost of something. That's why he's comfortable mentioning it freely.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 6:11 p.m.

    The President should have used W's Iraq war strategy. Don't even mention the cost, let alone how it will be paid for.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 9, 2011 6:07 p.m.

    re: Mark,

    Let's look at the facts. The Republicans aren't going to give Mr. Obama what he wants. The Democrats, who hope to retain office, will never ask Americans for another $487 BILLION. The last time Mr. Obama told us that we had to give HIM authority to spend $800 BILLION, America LOST 3,000,000 jobs.

    Do you really think that Mr. Obama is going to get away with it again?

    Do you have $1,500 to give him? That's your share of this "stimulus" package. Do you have $1,500 for everyone in your family to give him? 300,000,000 Americans are going to have to cough up $1,500 each to pay for his wild idea.

    The last time he tried to fool us, some people actually believed in him. What evidence do you have that he's not going to just squander another half-TRILLION $$?

  • IDC Boise, ID
    Sept. 9, 2011 5:18 p.m.

    Sounds like pandering to the uneducated to buy votes with a credit card that is already over the limit to me.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 5:10 p.m.

    "Mr. Obama wants American businessmen to hire people and the first thing he does is to demand that they turn over all their money to HIM!"

    Richards, can you please provide the quote, or the plan, where President Obama demands that businessmen turn over all their money to him.

    "Would someone please tell Mr. Obama that raising taxes will kill all new jobs "

    Can you provide any objective study that backs up this claim? Can you provide anything other then your opinion?

    The tax rates prior to President Bush's tax cuts did not hamper job growth one bit. In fact job growth was excellent under the rates President Obama is proposing.

  • Ted H. Midvale, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    He does lie.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 9, 2011 4:26 p.m.

    Mr. Obama wants American businessmen to hire people and the first thing he does is to demand that they turn over all their money to HIM! What a plan. Would someone please tell Mr. Obama that raising taxes will kill all new jobs - but that seems exactly what he wants to do.

  • libertarian Cedar City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 4:18 p.m.

    "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
    __ A. Einstein

    Throwing money at the problem won't change anything.
    The reason he keeps doing this is because the banks keep pulling his strings to borrow more money.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 3:53 p.m.

    The plan would be passed using paygo (something democrats like, and republicans like until obama says he's for it) which requires that it be paid for one way or another. Though they might just add it to the tab that that super-committee with the debt ceiling deal will have to find cuts or tax increases for.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Sept. 9, 2011 3:22 p.m.

    Oh NOW tax cuts have to be paid for. What happened to tax cuts create revenue? Tax cuts aren't spending?

    Would you Obama haters stick to something.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 2:56 p.m.

    This is clearly a campaign speech, not a real plan to improve the economy. He extends promises that are impossible to keep, or unrealistic. This is the classic definition of a campaign speech.

    How do politicians look us in the eye and lie like this? Con artists like this are often read about on the front page of the newspapers...as they are being arrested for scamming others out of their money.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 2:55 p.m.

    I guess his numbers will continue to TANK...given he has now resorted to LYING and MISLEADING the American People!

    His Poll numbers resemble our National Debt as well does his credibility!

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 9, 2011 2:38 p.m.

    This isn't the first time Obama has promised us things he can't deliver based on economics that don't add up. If he did it 1,000 times some of his faithful few would still buy it hook, line and sinker.

    A fact check on his speech indicates his promises wouldn't be achievable even if everybody, including Democrats, pulled together.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 1:51 p.m.

    This seems more like a plan to prolong a recession...

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 1:45 p.m.

    "It will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals don't roll it back."

    Translation: THE BILL IS NOT PAID FOR!!! Underscore the word NOT!! So the "anointed one" stands up there and repeats the silly phrase "PASS THIS BILL" I think 15 times!! Holy smokes what gives?? So in other words, pass this bill - never mind the fact that the bill isn't even written down yet nor has anyone even read the bill. Oh and the bill really isn't paid for - just joking folks. The super-duper committee from congress of which such intellectual giants as John Kerry are members were supposed to find 1 trillion in deficit savings over the next 10 years ... oh and now just add another half trillion to that amount. This president has crossed the line into absurdity or insanity or perhaps the more plausible is that he used this speech to kick of HIS re-election campaign and he already started the blame game in his speech. What a travesty this man is.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 9, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    Was Obama trying to scam us, again? Promised serveral times "simulus" #2 is paid for! Paid for by suggesting cuts in spending maybe, perhaps,might happen in 10 years or so, but we will spend the cuts now! If you believe there will be ANY spending cuts, you are being scammed!

  • Carnak Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 1:23 p.m.

    Boy, this is a real shocker. Obama with a plan that isn't paid for.

  • est061985 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Sept. 9, 2011 1:09 p.m.

    "It all paid for", just not by us, right now. I am insulted, and the whole of America should be equally insulted. Contrary to popular belief, future politicians are just as unreliable and self-absorbed as current politicians. What makes you think "they" will be extra fiscally responsible to make up for our current fiscal mess?