This is his pivot face. (Larry Downing/Reuters)
This is his pivot face. (Larry Downing/Reuters)

Here we are, as Dana Milbank writes today, on our 4,347th iteration of President Obama pivoting to jobs — this time, definitely. Which would be fine, per Milbank, if it weren’t in the form of a bunch of speeches microwaving Obama’s leftovers from 2005. Wake us when it’s a new idea, or a new way to get the old ideas over the dead body of Congress.

DOps says that Obama’s old ideas make better speeches than policy, anyhow:

I really don’t believe that Obama has or has ever really had a compelling idea about how to really enliven the economy. He reached into the usual bag of tricks during the recession and was able to grab onto a huge amount of stimulus money. But beyond that, I have not seen a message which resonates well enough with businesses or voters to press the Congress into action.
Businesses are sitting on unprecedented piles of cash. How do you encourage them to invest that in growing the economy? If your only plan is to tax a bunch of people, lust after overseas profits, and put more/expanded entitlements in place, no one will buy it.

sold2u argues that the whole problem is that Obama shouldn’t be trying to create jobs at all:

Obama is interested in job creation only if it is directed out of Washington. He has no interest in fostering an environment conducive to private sector job creation.

Though BrokenWindows thinks that’s a hypocritical argument for conservatives:

Does the private sector need government to baby them with tax breaks and less regulation to create jobs? When poor people need government help that’s dependency. Apparently when business needs government help, that’s capitalism.

cdierd1944 says there’s no need for new ideas if everyone agrees the old ones would work:

I am confused as to what you expect from Obama. There are no “new” ideas. What he is trying to do is get the ideas he has already offered acted upon. Does anyone really doubt that investing more in infrastructure will generate positive economic results? That is not a new idea, but it is one that brings together a serious need and economic growth.

MPatalinjug agrees, saying that Obama has been doing a pretty good job so far in any case:

With the jobless rate at a 6-year low of 7.5 percent, President Barack Obama and his economic managers must doing some things right.
Obviously, Dana Milbank, chooses to forget that bringing the jobless rate to as far down as 7.5 percent is quite an achievement, given the intransigence of Republicans.
Why should President Obama change when his present policies have worked just fine, to the benefit of the country? Change without an underlying worthy purpose is counterproductive.

While GulfPundit wishes Obama would acknowledge the one or two things that have changed since 2005:

He still talks about Washington as if he never got the job. Obama’s involved in everything and responsible for nothing.

cmsaytown says there’s a reason Obama’s in a holding pattern. It’s working out okay for the GOP:

GOP jobs ideas:
repeal Obamacare
if that doesn’t work..
try to repeal Obamacare.
if that doesn’t work..
try to repeal Obamacare.
if that doesn’t work..
try to repeal Obamacare.
if that doesn’t work..
try to repeal Obamacare.
if that doesn’t work..
try to repeal Obamacare.

And PostScript wants to congratulate Carlos Danger2 on his (or her) extremely, erm, topical username:

Note to liberals. To jump start the economy you subsidize jobs through lower taxes; subsidizing failure only produces more of that stuff.