Obama vs. The NFL

It could perhaps be the most important speech of his Presidency but let's just make sure it doesn't get in the way of the Saints and Packers.

Mark the date. Thursday, September 8. The New Orleans Saints take on the Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers to kick off the 2011 NFL season. For many Americans, it’s the most important event of the year. Heck, even President Obama’s jobs speech before a rare joint session of congress is taking a back seat to it.

Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the U.S. failed to add new jobs to the market for the first time since 1945. With unemployment sitting at an ungodly 9.1%, one might think that a football game would seem trivial in comparison but not the Obama Administration. White House Spokesperson, Jay Carney says that the president’s address to Congress will conclude before the 8:30 p.m. ET football broadcast begins. President Obama won’t tangle with kick off.

Hurray for small favors! After all in New Orleans and Green Bay there are nearly 60,000 unemployed people. Now, thanks to President Obama, they can watch his speech and of course enjoy the game as well. Nothing better than a double header, especially when you don’t have much else going on like perhaps commuting home from that job that your family so desperately needs.

Keep in mind, competing with the NFL on Thursday wasn’t the Administration’s first choice. They wanted it held on Wednesday but House Speaker John Boehner wouldn’t have any of that. No way was the president going to upstage the already planned GOP presidential debate. Republicans held their ground there.

So there you go, talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. It’s either the NFL or the GOP. I guess you can say President Obama chose the lesser of two evils.

Regarding the speech itself, one that’s going to be shorter than it should so as not to interfere with kick off, the president is expected to lay out proposals to increase hiring with tax incentives for business and more government spending for public work projects. He also wants to extend the payroll tax cuts for workers and jobless benefits for the unemployed. Those proposals should cost the U.S. some 175 billion dollars.

More importantly though. Are you ready for some FOOTBALL???!!!

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

jmz10 September 09, 2011 at 07:12 PM
So, if regulations as you adamantly declare, do not truly impact hiring than why not have more? Lets regulate how much milk we can buy, lets regulate how much fuel a trucking company can use in the name of the environment, lets regulate salaries, lets regulate carbon emissions, lets regulate water consumption, lets regulate the type of light bulbs a store uses, lets regulate how much salt is used in our products, lets regulate how much crop a farmer can produce each season…why not regulate it all? (even though they are trying to as we speak) BECAUSE IT IS BAD FOR BUSINESS! What is bad for business is bad for employment, FACE IT. A businesses priority is to stay in business not guarantee employment. The best way to maintain quality employment is to have disposable money to invest in hiring not on crummy regulation and even more so, taxes.
jmz10 September 09, 2011 at 07:12 PM
Now to the point that lower taxes does not help employment. Again, looking at this in reverse. If this is true than why not just tax a company 85 or 95% of what they make. If lower taxes have no implicit impact on hiring than with that logic higher taxes would not impede on hiring either. According to your theory of higher taxes, it’s a natural win-win, the government gets more money and it doesn’t impact hiring. Of course that is not the case. Tell me, who do you think will have a better chance of hiring you… Company A that pays a flat tax of 20% across the board and has more money left over because they paid their share of taxes or Company B that pays 80% in taxes and is barely getting by because of their burden of expenses. The answer is quite clear. As I think we both agree the problem is jobs and how to create them, and the only way to create them is to provide incentives and get the government off of our backs. Together as a nation we are all a part of the whole so the bigger the government is, the smaller the people are.
Nick Muson September 09, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Well your argument about India is anecdotal and inaccurate, and more than that completely irrelevant. Life is utterly miserable for hundreds of millions of Indians, with levels of poverty that we (luckily) can barely imagine. It wasn't caused by Keynsian economics, and it isn't being cured because Ford opened a plant there. I don't think you know anything about India other than what satisfies your simplistic view of the world. And I understand the THEORY behind lower regs and lower taxes spurring employment. I have heard the ANECDOTES about how a business will react in the face of regulation. But where's the EVIDENCE? What proof is there that relaxing taxes or lowering regulations would cause unemployment numbers to drop in any substantive way? It's funny that wingers can't admit that their solution to EVERYTHING is lower regulations and lower taxes, evidence to the contrary be damned. I don't know why you expect anyone to take your logical machinations seriously when it's so crystal-clear that your proofs come as an afterthought to your beliefs. You need a better argument than "this is what I believe to be true". Which regulations are so burdensome that to repeal them would spur massive amounts of hiring? What tax burden is so great that it is a bigger factor in hiring than actual sales? It's all pie-in-the-sky BS.
Nick Muson September 09, 2011 at 07:48 PM
"Now to the point that lower taxes does not help employment..." I'm done. Your "point" is nothing more than a little ball of meaningless stories that might make you happy but are devoid of content. I wish I could look at the complexity of the world, boil it down to a couple of cutsey anecdotes, and move on, but I can't. "And just to close this useless debate" You said that like 4 comments ago. Live up to it.
Alberto Fernandez September 09, 2011 at 08:48 PM
I thinks the tiddlywinks game needs restarting.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »