Posted on 09/09/2011 1:31:08 PM PDT by caroline2005nc
Apparently President Barack Obama’s speechwriters thought repeating the phrase “pass this bill” over and over again would magically resonate with members of Congress. The president used the line 17 times in his Thursday night address.
Did he overdo it?
On Friday’s “Rush Limbaugh Show,” fill-in host Mark Steyn said that catchphrase was more reminiscent of an infomercial than a presidential proclamation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
What bill?.. the President can’t write and submit “BILLS”...
Not that there was and is any bill at all..
The proposed alleged “BILL” is not written down or submitted to anybody..
There “IS NO BILL”.. the invisible bill is a fantasy..
WHO among the pundits are saying that?..
Thats WHAT needs to be said..
“The Invisible Presidential BILL”
The President is a CON Artist.. pure bunko.. a shell game barker.. picking the american peoples pocket..
In my humble opinion, the Jobs Bill is President 0bama’s own personal presidential primary. That is, if fails to sell that bill to the American people within three months then he knows that he won’t be able to get re-elected next November. Thus, he would probably not run for re-election and would let another Democrat run for POTUS. But, if he gets the people to buy into his Jobs Bill and pressure Congress to pass it then he knows he will likely be re-elected.
“some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”
Ah if only The One had unlimited power! No limits, no rigid ideas, just pure Government with no constraints, no resistance!
Can we confirm how much effort was put into the “Son of Porkulus” speech from Axelrod and Gibbs from their Chicago-based AstroTurf Factory?
“What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do?”
Is this a trick question? Oh, wait, he actually believes in those programs. Hahahahaha...
Obama said that the bill would not add to the deficit. That is far different from saying that it won't add to the debt, because being deficit neutral means that the financing for this bill must come from this year's expenditures. Meaning that we need either massive tax increases or huge spending cuts, probably both, to pay for this as yet unwritten "bill".
Obama apparently missed that distinction, because he's kicked this issue to the SuperCommittee, whose task has been to find reductions over a 10 year period, not over a one-year period. The GOP should hop right on this and point out that raising taxes by $450b in this year isn't likely to stimulate the economy.
More likely than not it is some kind of hypnosis technique. Infomercials may knowingly or unknowingly use hypnosis techniques as well.
“We are a nation of laws!!!!”
No, we are a nation of “rigid ideas.” Which can be easily overstepped by not being so bigoted and getting with the times, man.
I know...if and when Rush retires (not that I want him to do that anytime soon) I would love for Steyn to get the gig permanently.
The other Rush fill ins are horrible (except WW who hasn’t been on lately).
It is quite possible that he, like most Americans, can't differentiate between the two.
Very interesting.
WHO WROTE THESE SPEECHES FOR HIS TELEPROMPTER?
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
“Obama said that the bill would not add to the deficit. That is far different from saying that it won’t add to the debt, because being deficit neutral means that the financing for this bill must come from this year’s expenditures”
Correct me if my logic’s off, but for it to be added to the national debt it would have to cause a deficit. Maybe not this year, but at least some year. I realize the trick is forever to present bills as costing us nothing by “backloading” it onto some future budget. Which is dishonest, but in a tricky political way that we can all wink-wink, nudge-nudge about.
Whatever way you cut it, though, we’re not exactly talking about the difference between the deficit and the debt. We’re talking about the difference between this year’s deficit and some future deficit. So when Obama says it’s deficit neutral, he’s hiding that it’s not debt-neutral, yes. But he’s also hiding that its only deficit-neutral for the nearest budget, to say nothing of eventual budgets.
But rather embarrasing for him to admit to that publicly if he’s called on it properly. Not to mention that he’d be forced to acknowledge that it would indeed add to the deficit, which is not a popular admission to make these days.
He’s right about nothing on paper. Believe the president said a week from Monday something would be sent up. Everything seems to be second Tuesday of next week with this guy.
President Zero is this country's Bernie Madoff.He is selling another Ponzi scheme on late night TV.
It would cost you anything. ( LIE !)
“More likely than not it is some kind of hypnosis technique.”
Everything in these speeches is planned by his handlers.I was surprised to hear a clip of the speech on an “urban” radio station today as I was scanning the dial. Just a regular music station that dropped in a little obama between rap songs. They are obviously already executing a well thought out plan to get the yoots fired up about voting in 2012.
Another thing, why is it that Rush does not have women subs? Liz Cheney would be dynamite!
Oh G-d NOOOOOOO!!!
“The only thing preventing us from passing these (trade) bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party,” he (obamma) said at a recent news conference.
Senior Republicans in Congress have howled in protest, pointing out that the agreements have not left the president’s desk to journey to the Hill for a vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/politics/26trade.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.