Today’s Q for O
Email… At his first presidential press conference, in the East Room of the White House tonight.
TAPPER: Thank you, Mr. President. My question follows Julianna’s in — in content. The American people have seen hundreds of billions of dollars spent already, and still the economy continues to freefall. Beyond avoiding the national catastrophe that you’ve warned about, once all the legs of your stool are in place –
OBAMA: Right.
TAPPER: — how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working? Can they — should they be looking at the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric should they use when and how will they know if it’s working or whether or not we need to go to a Plan B?
OBAMA: I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs. That’s bottom line number one, because, if people are working, then they’ve got enough confidence to make purchases, to make investments. Businesses start seeing that consumers are out there with a little more confidence, and they start making investments, which means they start hiring workers. So step number one: job creation.
Step number two: Are we seeing the credit markets operate effectively? You know, I can’t tell you how many businesses that I talk to that are successful businesses but just can’t get credit. Part of the problem in Elkhart that I heard about today was the fact that — this is the R.V. capital of America. You’ve got a bunch of R.V. companies that have customers who want to purchase R.V.s, but even though their credit is good, they can’t get the loan. Now, the businesses also can’t get loans to make payments to their suppliers. But when they have consumers, consumers can’t get the loans that they need. So normalizing the credit markets is, I think, step number two.
Step number three is going to be housing. Have we stabilized the housing market? Now, you know, the federal government doesn’t have complete control over that, but if our plan is effective, working with the Federal Reserve Bank, working with the FDIC, I think what we can do is stem the rate of foreclosure and we can start stabilizing housing values over time.
And the most — the — the biggest measure of success is whether we stop contracting and shedding jobs and we start growing again. Now, you know, I don’t have a crystal ball. And as I said, this is an unprecedented crisis. But my hope is that after a difficult year — and this year is going to be a difficult year — that businesses start investing again, they start making decisions that, you know, in fact, there’s money to be made out there, customers or consumers start feeling that their jobs are stable and safe, and they start making purchases again, and, if we get things right, then, starting next year, we can start seeing significant improvement.
- jpt
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat 
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
Jake,
Whatever your own political beliefs, I appreciate your continued tough questions and determination to hold our leaders to account. Don’t ever feel uncomfortable to ask the unpopular questions like you have for the past weeks.
Posted by: Colt | February 9, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
Jake- you did a great job tonight. Actually, I thought most of the questions were good.
As for the answer you received, I wonder how we can measure jobs “saved”? Jobs created is pretty easy- or at least we can measure the number of jobs created even if we can’t attribute them to this bill.
But how in the world do we measure jobs saved? Can’t any job that exists fit into that category?
Posted by: Maybee | February 9, 2009, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
Soli Deo Gloria!
POTUS lacks wisdom, a moral center, ethics and humility but he would make a pretty good used-car salesman! :(
Pelosi reigns – Obama carries her water!
Posted by: aware2u | February 9, 2009, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
Jake while The O was telling us what, when, why and how we got into this economic crisis soon to be irreversible if we don’t act now, go to the link and read who really helped to get us there. I was a little concerned for a bit. Didn’t see you in your spot next to Helen and thought you had been given a timeout for your rude behavior with Gibbs.(NOT) Why are ya’ll so scared to ask him tough questions.
Why not ask, The CBO anticipates that the current recession, which started
in December 2007, will last until the second half of 2009,
making it the longest recession since World War II.
This recession, however, may not result in the highest unemployment
rate. That rate, in CBO’s forecast, rises to 9.2 percent
by early 2010
What indicators from either your advisors or reports you’ve seen indicate to you that if we don’t act now we will face Catastrophe and how does the recent drop of the Baltic Dry Index fit into your forecast of the economy.
Posted by: bdaman | February 9, 2009, 10:05 pm 10:05 pm
Obama was good today. If he can keep up that spirit, he has the potential for becoming one of the greatest presidents in history.
Posted by: El_Pajaro | February 9, 2009, 10:09 pm 10:09 pm
Jake, u and ur colleagues did a great job on behalf of the American people. I thought ur question and Pres. Obama’s response was one of many highlights.
Posted by: tw | February 9, 2009, 10:11 pm 10:11 pm
Questions I wish people would now ask Obama:
Who are these Republicans who want to do nothing? You said you had to deal with them, but neither the House nor the Senate Republicans advocate doing nothing.
When has the tactic of using only tax cuts been tried, over and over again? That’s a strawman. There have been tax cuts, but there has been plenty of spending.
Why does he keep talking about inheriting the deficit, or the Republicans presiding over the deficit? He was in the Senate for 4 years and had a say in spending. He was in the Senate for 2 years when the Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House. He has had power when it came to US Government Spending.
The Senate also was controlled by Democrats the first 2 years of Bush.
Furthermore, Congress, not the President, sets the budget. He can’t keep blaming everyone else, just because he chose not to show up to his day job while he campaigned.
Posted by: Maybee | February 9, 2009, 10:18 pm 10:18 pm
Oh Blah blah blah was at it again today. It’s going to be a long four years.
Posted by: Kitty | February 9, 2009, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm
These are serious times
The questions and the mood of the press conference reflected the times
Maybe “concerned in OH” doesn’t know anyone who was laid off in the past three months and who is scared of how they are going to take care of their family and their health
Those people are not concerned you have a President who in thinking and reacting to a questions may pause — ahh –
And maybe “MAYBEE” should check their facts-
quite a few of the Repulicans Senators – Wicker of Miss, Corker of Tenn and others who said we should let the public sector work this out and wait – thats is two from Today alone
And also please check your facts- the democrats did not control congress since 1994–
In 2006 the dem took control of the house but not congress — and in throughout GWB administration the reb party controlled the congress
Those darn pesky facts
Good Job Jake –
Posted by: alison | February 9, 2009, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm
Jake why did you of all reports not call Obama a liar when he said the stimulus package contained no PORK and special interest projects.
Posted by: We Demand TRUTH | February 9, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
“As for the answer you received, I wonder how we can measure jobs “saved”? Jobs created is pretty easy- or at least we can measure the number of jobs created even if we can’t attribute them to this bill.”
I noticed that too. The stimulus package hasn’t even passed yet and he’s preparing to backtrack on his promise of creating 3-4 million jobs.
“I was a little concerned for a bit. Didn’t see you in your spot next to Helen and thought you had been given a timeout for your rude behavior with Gibbs.”
hahaha me too.
Posted by: Bridget | February 9, 2009, 10:51 pm 10:51 pm
There is no bill as of yet. What one person considers “pork” another considers prudent use of public funds. Seems to me that out of the $800 billion being spent, this bill (relative to Congressional standards) is about amazingly free of most of the usual BS. Yeah, there’s someone ranting about x million here or y million there but seems to me that makes up about 1% of the whole thing. I can’t even buy beef that lean at the store…
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 10:54 pm 10:54 pm
MIguy..
I guess a stop smoking program in the stimulus makes work. Yes it was taken out but that is one example. And the tax that Obama put on cigarettes taxes the poor.
Obama said i will not increase the tax on those making under 250,000 dollars a year. WHAT DOES HE CALL TAXING CIGARETTE SMOKERS THEN>
Posted by: We Demand TRUTH | February 9, 2009, 10:57 pm 10:57 pm
Look, you don’t like him, I get it. I’m not going to try to change your mind.
But, Obama didn’t write the bill and any piece of legislation is going to have provisions that some disagree with. Do I like the government spending so much money because folks got greedy? Not one bit. But the problem is that it’s government’s job to do unpopular things that are necessary and right now, government seems to be the only party willing to spend money.
As for increasing taxes on cigarettes, that is just sound policy as that choice accounts for a good deal of health problems and raises everyone’s health insurance. Moreover, raising the tax in Colorado seems to be correlated with a reduction in heart attacks.
I haven’t seen the final bill (no one has for that matter), so I plan on reserving judgment until it appears.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
MIguy
You call it sound policy. I call it a big fat broken Lie he told when he said no new taxes on the poor and no tax increases on the poor. OR WAS IT ALL A LIE and campaign rhetoric. When was he telling the truth.
Posted by: We Demand TRUTH | February 9, 2009, 11:10 pm 11:10 pm
Government already controls what doctors do – through Medicare reimbursements. Not only through reported quality measures (that qualify for a reimbursement bonus) but also through setting the monetary priorities for health care.
As for electronic health records, there are a lot of potential advantages but mostly not for doctors. Big Brother (government, health insurers) will likely tap into the records to make sure that “standard” treatment protocols are utilized. Patients will be able to take their records wherever they want. Doctors get to foot the bill.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
alison- Congress has been under Democratic control in both the House and the Senate since the 2006 elections. I don’t know what facts you think I misunderstand there.
The Senate was also under Democratic control from June 2001-Jan 2003,
Posted by: Maybee | February 9, 2009, 11:12 pm 11:12 pm
MIguy
We the people already have a instrument in place to make sure Doctors perform properly without some big wasteful govt program that does nothing gets created.
Its called a LAWSUIT.
Posted by: We Demand TRUTH | February 9, 2009, 11:14 pm 11:14 pm
Lawsuits are a poor substitute for quality and generally do not provide better healthcare (and also make the cost of delivering it higher). The appropriate question is how does one improve health care in this country and reduce or contain costs.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:18 pm 11:18 pm
You are blinded by your venom as you seem to think you know me or what I believe – but you cannot even pause to give the benefit of the doubt to a fellow poster. Feel free to rant if you desire, but please don’t speak for me.
I was merely stating a fact. What you apparently don’t realize is that most health insurers tie their reimbursement levels to Medicare.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:22 pm 11:22 pm
Finally, a president who answers the question at hand clearly and intelligently without sidestepping.
Don’t tell me there’s no change. I can see a huge difference already and I like it.
Posted by: silentbob | February 9, 2009, 11:23 pm 11:23 pm
It’s easy to criticize, but you should follow-up with a constructive solution.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:27 pm 11:27 pm
“What disgusts me is that you people think that’s “reform”.”
Us people, really. The stimulus bill is not nationalization of healthcare. You seem to have a really skewed view of even what that type of system may look like. The only thing sane to go by is Obama’s healthcare plan espoused during the campaign, which is nothing similar to what you propose or dream it to be.
Again, it’s not my job to make you like Obama and I couldn’t care less if you do.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm
Well, I gave you the courtesy of following your link. I suggest that you take the time to actually follow the link from that article to the actual legislation that passed the House.
There is a deep confusion from the article with Daschle’s book and what is in the legislation. If you read the House bill, you will see that what they are doing is appropriating money to help physicians buy electronic medical records software. I do not see any disincentives in the bill but the precedent already exists as under current laws, physicians will lose reimbursements from Medicare in 2011 or 2013 if they are not electronically prescribing medications.
Posted by: MIguy | February 9, 2009, 11:51 pm 11:51 pm
Notice how Obama says “save or create” 4 million jobs.How can you tell if Obamas plan saved 4 million jobs?Answer,you can’t but it leaves him some wiggle room when no new jobs are created.Very Clintonesque don’t you think.The typical Obama supporter might just buy it.
Posted by: Ronaldus | February 10, 2009, 12:09 am 12:09 am
Good question. But an evasive answer. You need to say: With all due respect, Mr. President, you have not responded to the question — and then repeat it.
If you and other reporters do this, we’ll eventually get responses to questions, not spin opportunities.
Posted by: Tom Kelly | February 10, 2009, 12:54 am 12:54 am
create OR save… what a load of b.s. it’d be nice if you all would call him on this.
Posted by: jack | February 10, 2009, 2:07 am 2:07 am
Obama will create 4 million government jobs of nothing but TAX COLLECTORS to pay for his payback to his buddies.
Posted by: heclern | February 10, 2009, 2:08 am 2:08 am
jack
Its like when Obama lied during the debate with Hillary when he said he did not sign an ANTI-GUN bill.
The Media never challenged him on this blatant lie to get the mid western voters.
Posted by: jane ploode | February 10, 2009, 2:11 am 2:11 am
I saw the part of conference last night on TV. I watch it about 15 minutes. I wasn’t impress and it is boring. He didn’t do too well answer question. The problem is Obama’s lack of leadership.
Posted by: anonymous | February 10, 2009, 4:22 am 4:22 am
I’ve seen a lot of talk about all of the construction jobs that will be created by this bill, with the infrastructure projects, building of the wind towers, schools, which is useful and necessary. However, who are these construction jobs going to go to? President Obama signed an executive order repealing a previous executive order late last week. Non-union construction firms, which comprise 84% of the entire construction industry are now ineligible to bid on federal construction projects or any construction job that has any federal funding. If the majority of construction that’s going to be taking place in the future in this country is going to come via federal funds why take such a restrictive step at a time when this industry needs work badly. How is repealing that executive order which did allow non-union smaller construction firms to bid on federally funded jobs going to save or create jobs? Seems to me this will actually put a lot of small businesses and sub-contracting firms out of business. Seems contrary to the ultimate goal of producing jobs and assistance for firms that need work right now. I wish this would get more attention in the main stream media especially when President Obama talks about the 4 million jobs that will be saved or created with this funding and these projects. How does that assertion get reconciled with the executive order he just signed?
Posted by: CuriousImpact | February 10, 2009, 4:24 am 4:24 am
“I think the bottom line is that liberals really despise freedom. They want to tell you what to drive, what to eat, what treatments your doctor can provide, what you put in your lungs, what temperature you set your house at, or how much you earn.”
Concerned in OH left out just one thing: all of these rules are pushed and made by the liberal elitists in Washington – and none of these rules affect them personally. The rules are just for us little people, us common folk, us peasants – whether we’re liberal, conservative, middle-of-the-road, or just want to be left alone. The rules never apply to those who make them with their gold-plated healthcare, cushy retirement plan, and oh-so-rich lifestyle at taxpayer expense.
Posted by: marylou | February 10, 2009, 5:44 am 5:44 am
I wonder if any journalist will call
Obama on his flat out lie that there
are no ear marks. I know that charles
gibson thinks obama is the messiah,
i can not believe there are no real
journalist anymore.
Posted by: lance mawdsley | February 10, 2009, 5:50 am 5:50 am
Maybe someone should ask Mr. Obama why seniors will be denied health care in many instances if the stimulus passes as is? I’d like to know the answer to that one!
Posted by: Obama, the second coming | February 10, 2009, 6:30 am 6:30 am
Obama says the banks got us into this mess with reckless lending. Well who made them lend the money — Pressure from ACORN and all the Democrats with friend in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Thanks Barney Franks and Chris Dodd.
Posted by: susie | February 10, 2009, 7:14 am 7:14 am
And what is the time line for judging if the Democrat plan is a success? 3, 6 months, a year, 10 years?
And once the economy turns around will this excess spending be stopped?
And how does one measure a job saved?
This is the Jimmy Stewart, “Its a Wonderful Life” movie economic plan all based on “what if”.
Posted by: Sally J. | February 10, 2009, 7:18 am 7:18 am
Only 10% of the money will be spent in 2009.
When is the most money spent?
Answer: When are the next national, mid-term elections? 2010.
Politics as usual.
Posted by: Wilma H. | February 10, 2009, 7:22 am 7:22 am
What do they teach in journalism school
how to read a teleprompter. Not one main stream journalist tried to get to the truth about Obama. Maybe they did know the truth but I forget ABC does not believe in the truth. Thats ok I remember when Walt Disney believed in God.
Posted by: lance mawdsley | February 10, 2009, 7:53 am 7:53 am
MI guy wrote: “As for increasing taxes on cigarettes, that is just sound policy…Moreover, raising the tax in Colorado seems to be correlated with a reduction in heart attacks.”
The Democrats raised taxes on cigarettes in order to pay for SCHIP. What if everyone quit smoking? Then how are they going to pay for SCHIP? Now as for the correlation, that’s because people who quit smoking are less likely to have a heart attack. If the government banned smoking altogether, wouldn’t that result in a greater reduction in heart attacks?
MIguy wrote: “I haven’t seen the final bill (no one has for that matter), so I plan on reserving judgment until it appears.”
It will appear as soon as it is passed! Then it will be too late. Wake up people! Not only do the Democrats want to monitor your doctor’s decisions they want to be able to control the decisions that your doctor makes.
Well, change is coming folks. And now we learn that President Obama intends to take more of an active role regarding the Census Bureau. The Democrats have advocated using sampling rather than actual house-to-house counting for decades. Isn’t that sort of like the foxes being in charge of counting the chickens?
Posted by: James Danley | February 10, 2009, 7:59 am 7:59 am
What will Obamas excuse be when it fails. Why did we go through all this he
had the votes. Would you journalist
please remind people that the 70′s were aa lot worse. Just once I wish the media was unbiased
Posted by: lance mawdsley | February 10, 2009, 8:01 am 8:01 am
Why is it bad to inherit a trillion in debt but good to double it?
Posted by: smith | February 10, 2009, 8:03 am 8:03 am
I am glad that charles gibson makes millions for reading a teleprompter.
Boy charlie you sure work hard for that money you guys should take a pay cut since you are so into socialism. What you make in all three networks is disgusting and then you go and criticize everyone else.
Posted by: lance mawdsley | February 10, 2009, 8:05 am 8:05 am
I do not care what party anyone is in as
long as you believe in freedom. Wake up aAmerica this is the first step at losing our liberty. Live Free or Die!!!
Posted by: lance mawdsley | February 10, 2009, 8:09 am 8:09 am
“Why is it bad to inherit a trillion in debt but good to double it?” Smith, I think I love you. This is the best question I’ve heard during the entire discussion of the stimulus plan. Obama whined about the massive deficit he inherited– and I am the first to admit he did indeed inherit a massive deficit. Then he talked about the need to make the stimulus plan massive without missing a beat. What’s wrong with this picture?
Posted by: moderate | February 10, 2009, 8:13 am 8:13 am
Obama inherited a massive debt in addition to the deficit, which is the red ink created annually. The basics of the stimulus plan are simple- spending infusions designed to increase buying and work, something which the country is profoundly lacking in at the moment. There are parts of the stimulus plan which will dramatically offset its deficit spending, like infrastructure. According to Moody’s, each dollar spent on infrastructure gives the economy a 1.59 infusion. But the bigger bang for the buck is actually food stamps, generating around 1.70 or per dollar spent. In contrast, tax cuts create 1.02 per dollar.
Posted by: kathy | February 10, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
“Why is it bad to inherit a trillion in debt but good to double it?”
***************************************************
Is that a factually correct question?
Posted by: kathy | February 10, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
A journalist asks questions and reports the answers in context. A blogger shares opinion and information and interacts with his readers. Some of your commenters are asking for clarification, some pass along erroneous information and you don’t bother to correct them. Still waiting for you to step into the 21st century.
Posted by: Jo | February 10, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am
“I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs.”
Exactly HOW is anyone going to measure this????
If there were only 4 million jobs left in the entire country after Obama he could still claim success.
What a load of crap.
Posted by: drjohn | February 10, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
“Obama inherited a massive debt in addition to the deficit, which is the red ink created annually.”
Excuse me, but did Obama just fall off the turnip truck or was he, as I believe, a member of the Senate for the last four years and vote for everything that expanded the debt?
Posted by: drjohn | February 10, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
If we have so many successful business that can’t get credit and employed people looking to buy goods but they can’t get credit, shouldn’t fixing the credit crunch be the first goal? Won’t that save the jobs and stimulate the economy?
Posted by: peabob | February 10, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
In response to a question pertaining to Alex Rodriguez’ admission that he used steroids, President Obama stated: “…and that our kids hopefully are watching and saying, ’You know what? There are no short cuts, that when you try to take short cuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity’s not worth it,”’
It’s too bad that he’s not taking his own advice when it comes to this stimulus package. He and the Democrats are trying to ram pet spending projects into the stimulus bill–all under the guise of “stimulus”–instead of including them in the budget.
Posted by: James Danley | February 10, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Why is not Obama being asked about H.R. 1 EH hidden in the stimulus bill, which restricts health care to the elderly, saying they must live with their ailments when they get older.
They are pushing not only Universal Health Care but Government deciding who lives and who dies.
This is why Obama is in a rush!! Dachsle described this plan thats why the push for him to head the HHS, he stated that since they failed in 94, the only way top pass it it was to hide it in a bill and pass it quick!!
to kill the elderly plan must be stopped!!
Posted by: spock | February 10, 2009, 10:36 am 10:36 am
‘Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system.
According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”
The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies bec ause they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forego experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. “
Posted by: drjohn | February 10, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
“-Republicans have proposed doing nothing, even though they offered up countless alternatives.”
-Concerned
What do you mean by countless? ‘Zero’?
Posted by: Skip | February 10, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
“Excuse me, but did Obama just fall off the turnip truck or was he, as I believe, a member of the Senate for the last four years and vote for everything that expanded the debt?”
-DJ
I thought the standard right-wing line was that Obama only voted ‘present’ and never really voted on anything, so which is it?
Posted by: Skip | February 10, 2009, 11:52 am 11:52 am
The only Republican plan I ever hear about is more tax cuts.
If I google these plans should I be suprised to find out they are all just various tax cuts?
Posted by: Skip | February 10, 2009, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
This was a good question, and a substantive answer. Does this mean that the press is finally back after it’s long, fluffy hiatus during George Bush’s reign of error?
Seriously, where were you guys while Bush and Co. were wrecking the country and bungling their fraudulent little war?
Posted by: Tungsten | February 10, 2009, 1:41 pm 1:41 pm
Bush generally avoided calling on reporters who he thought would ask him tough questions.
Last night Obama took a question from Fox News.
Posted by: Skip | February 10, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm