Obama's Job Speech

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't understand why he's focusing so much on construction. What happens when the construction is done? Those workers will have jobs until the project is finished. They won't spend any money more than to pay off debts and bills. Hopefully if their smart they'll be saving the money. Which means the banks keep the money and add to the piles they already have. In the end we spend a ton of money that doesn't create any long term job.

Money needs to be spent in research and development. Innovation has been a trademark of the US during our most prosperous times.

The argument of basic Keynesism is to stimulate the economy with projects that can then be leveraged by private industry.

Further infrastructure is tempting to politicians (i.e. Republicans) because they can then funnel $$ back home.

I tend to agree to you because I don't think infrastructure is the big reason manufacturing jobs are leaving the US. We have systemic issues that prevent us from being competitive and there is no stimulus that is going to fix that.

[Surfah]

I don't understand why he's focusing so much on construction. What happens when the construction is done? Those workers will have jobs until the project is finished. They won't spend any money more than to pay off debts and bills. Hopefully if their smart they'll be saving the money. Which means the banks keep the money and add to the piles they already have. In the end we spend a ton of money that doesn't create any long term job.

Money needs to be spent in research and development. Innovation has been a trademark of the US during our most prosperous times.

It's obvious why, because he needs the Unions' votes.

[happyone]

Regular Amtrak trains were half as much and really weren't much slower (~8 hrs vs 6:30). But I wanted to experience the high speed train. Oh well. The 737-400 at 517 mph was a better fit for our needs anyway. I can't imagine trying to bounce a bored 3 year-old boy for 8 hours on a train!

On my mission I rode the Bullet Train (Shinkanzen) from Kobe to Akashi (one stop) for that very reason

[happyone]

Sadly. When I went a read how he wanted to spend the 400 billion it made me sad. I do not think that will have any impact on our current situation. Most of those spending is through infrastructure which takes time to set up and is not an immediate influx of money directly to the people who will either spend or save it..

I think this "Jobs Act" he wants will continue to leave the markets unstable. The other question I have.. Where is he getting the money to cover this stimulus package.....

according to this article from linked from RCP - same way he has be talking about for ever.

The total $447 billion price tag would be "fully paid for" if enacted in its entirety, the White House says. But the burden for covering the cost largely falls on the new congressional super committee already tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction before the end of the year.

Obama tonight he would release a blueprint for reaching roughly $2 trillion in cuts by Sept. 19, and urged the committee to include closure of corporate tax loopholes and higher taxes on wealthier Americans as part of that effort.

[dabrockster]

according to this article from linked from RCP - same way he has be talking about for ever.

So, he is adding to the deficit because these things are not in place at this time. Correct?? He is projecting the way he is going to pay the cost.

[happyone]

That's the way it looks to me

[il Padrino Ute]

It's obvious why, because he needs the Unions' votes.

Yep. When Obama says "construction jobs" he means union construction jobs. What about non-union accountants? Do they not need to get back to work as well?

Obama is a complete moron. Spending has made the economy worse and he wants to spend more? What a dumbass.

[cowboy]

This is not a jobs plan, it's a redistribution plan. Give money to wage earners by cutting their SS contribution, even though the impending insolvency of Social Security is what has us in trouble, and extend jobless benefits so that people have less incentive to find employment. Then pay for the whole thing by requiring 'wealthy' Americans, who already bear the vast majority of the tax burden, to pay even more, ie "their fair share."

Obama is a true idealogue. He clings to Keynesian policies no matter how many times they are tried and fail.

[RobinFinderson]

So Obama's approach is to create jobs via direct spending on stuff that will create jobs for the next 5-7 years (time it might take to complete large infrastructure improvements), and which will facilitate commerce for decades. It will be expensive, which is a problem as long as we refuse to pay for it by increasing taxes.

What is the Republican plan? Tax cuts and austerity, right?

Austerity is going to immediately increase unemployment, because it equates to cutting a lot of government jobs. Though states pay for fire fighters, police officers and teachers, they also depend on federal help to cover their budgets (which is a problem, but that is the reality) which means that this austerity is going to 'trickle down' and end up in the guaranteed loss of many jobs in these areas. Austerity will also mean fewer government contracts for creating guaranteed jobs in the private sector.

And tax cuts ARE spending inasmuch as they contribute to the deficit and debt. So lowering/cutting taxes is a gamble -- Republicans HOPE that businesses will turn around, ramp up manufacturing and hiring, and that in spite of the dismal economic situation in the states, businesses are going to gear up as if the economy was healthy.

Accepting that Obama's job plan is expensive, so are the Republican proposals. Moreover, Obama's plan, if fully implemented, guarantees job creation whereas Republican plans are gambling that, by creating a favorable business climate, companies will hire and manufacture in spite of the fact that the dismal economy means that there is limited demand for goods and services. GOP plans also gamble that the wishful hiring binge will soak up the currently unemployed population PLUS the guaranteed additional unemployment due to austerity measures.

To me, it seems like a liberal approach that guarantees public worker job preservation, and private job creation via government contracts, is a safer bet than hoping that businesses will create vast numbers of jobs when there is little demand for goods and services.

[WashingtonCoug]

I don't have a problem with an expensive approach. You can't spend the money on something that has a short term benefit. What will be the tangible benefits after the infrastructure is done? We'll have some nice roads and a lot of railway that is too expensive for anyone to ride on unless they have government subsidies. This is purely so that Obama can win the Union vote. It's ALL about politics.

[old_gregg]

Obama is a complete moron. Spending has made the economy worse and he wants to spend more? What a dumbass.

that's a really helpful and insightful contribution

[dabrockster]

So Obama's approach is to create jobs via direct spending on stuff that will create jobs for the next 5-7 years (time it might take to complete large infrastructure improvements), and which will facilitate commerce for decades. It will be expensive, which is a problem as long as we refuse to pay for it by increasing taxes.

What is the Republican plan? Tax cuts and austerity, right?

Austerity is going to immediately increase unemployment, because it equates to cutting a lot of government jobs. Though states pay for fire fighters, police officers and teachers, they also depend on federal help to cover their budgets (which is a problem, but that is the reality) which means that this austerity is going to 'trickle down' and end up in the guaranteed loss of many jobs in these areas. Austerity will also mean fewer government contracts for creating guaranteed jobs in the private sector.

And tax cuts ARE spending inasmuch as they contribute to the deficit and debt. So lowering/cutting taxes is a gamble -- Republicans HOPE that businesses will turn around, ramp up manufacturing and hiring, and that in spite of the dismal economic situation in the states, businesses are going to gear up as if the economy was healthy.

Accepting that Obama's job plan is expensive, so are the Republican proposals. Moreover, Obama's plan, if fully implemented, guarantees job creation whereas Republican plans are gambling that, by creating a favorable business climate, companies will hire and manufacture in spite of the fact that the dismal economy means that there is limited demand for goods and services. GOP plans also gamble that the wishful hiring binge will soak up the currently unemployed population PLUS the guaranteed additional unemployment due to austerity measures.

To me, it seems like a liberal approach that guarantees public worker job preservation, and private job creation via government contracts, is a safer bet than hoping that businesses will create vast numbers of jobs when there is little demand for goods and services.

My thoughts are we are not in need of any additional stimulus spending either liberal or republican philosophy's on how to stimulate the economy. The uncertainty in the market is due to his spending policy's and if the economy is going to recover the thought of additional spending from the govt will only hinder growth and uncertainty. The best course of action is "No Action" and actively look for ways to cut spending. Hard decisions will need to be made..

It's time we stop trying to artificially prop up our economy. Let it take its course. However, Political and reelection careers are at stake which causes actions that imo are not necessary and a hindrance. All for the sake of a show or to blame the other side.. The best interest of America are no longer important....

[NorthwestUteFan]

My state (Washington) has received nearly $8,400,000,000 in 'stimulus' since 2009, mostly in the form of ~$50k - $500k direct grants, with an associated creation of 12,000 jobs. That is $700k/job. I guaran-damn-tee you not one of those 'new' jobs is paying more than $70k/yr, with most paying far, far less than that.

Not a bad scam if you can get in on it...

The next $400B stimulus will be exactly the same as the last one. I now hope my grandchildren will be able to pay back this debt before it falls to my great-grandchildren. My oldest child is 9 yrs.

[Goatnapper'96]

So Obama's approach is to create jobs via direct spending on stuff that will create jobs for the next 5-7 years (time it might take to complete large infrastructure improvements), and which will facilitate commerce for decades. It will be expensive, which is a problem as long as we refuse to pay for it by increasing taxes.

What is the Republican plan? Tax cuts and austerity, right?

Austerity is going to immediately increase unemployment, because it equates to cutting a lot of government jobs. Though states pay for fire fighters, police officers and teachers, they also depend on federal help to cover their budgets (which is a problem, but that is the reality) which means that this austerity is going to 'trickle down' and end up in the guaranteed loss of many jobs in these areas. Austerity will also mean fewer government contracts for creating guaranteed jobs in the private sector.

And tax cuts ARE spending inasmuch as they contribute to the deficit and debt. So lowering/cutting taxes is a gamble -- Republicans HOPE that businesses will turn around, ramp up manufacturing and hiring, and that in spite of the dismal economic situation in the states, businesses are going to gear up as if the economy was healthy.

Accepting that Obama's job plan is expensive, so are the Republican proposals. Moreover, Obama's plan, if fully implemented, guarantees job creation whereas Republican plans are gambling that, by creating a favorable business climate, companies will hire and manufacture in spite of the fact that the dismal economy means that there is limited demand for goods and services. GOP plans also gamble that the wishful hiring binge will soak up the currently unemployed population PLUS the guaranteed additional unemployment due to austerity measures.

To me, it seems like a liberal approach that guarantees public worker job preservation, and private job creation via government contracts, is a safer bet than hoping that businesses will create vast numbers of jobs when there is little demand for goods and services.

I think it is very viable, historically proven and will undoubtedly bring us all unicorns and lollipops!

The systemic issue is our lack of competitiveness in an international economy. While the Republican response will not lead to increased employment it tries to address one aspect of our lack of competitiveness- our corporate tax structure The liberal approach seeks to me a continuance of the past - government subsidizing a standard of living that this country just can no longer afford. But admittedly, saying that is not likely a winning political strategy.

Finally, President Obama has no credibility on this issue. He had a chance for a stimulus once and it was an abortion. He made promises that never materialized and his opponents can have a field day with the cronyism. He is in no position to lead the nation because of the results of his first stimulus. Now I don't think that this administrations first stimulus was a true Keynesian effort, but it was the admin's effort and given what a cluster it was I doubt he will get much traction whether or not it is really needed now. There is just not the trust one needs to generate the support to spend this much of our kids money.

[Surfah]

I think it is very viable, historically proven and will undoubtedly bring us all unicorns and lollipops!

The systemic issue is our lack of competitiveness in an international economy. While the Republican response will not lead to increased employment it tries to address one aspect of our lack of competitiveness- our corporate tax structure The liberal approach seeks to me a continuance of the past - government subsidizing a standard of living that this country just can no longer afford. But admittedly, saying that is not likely a winning political strategy.

Finally, President Obama has no credibility on this issue. He had a chance for a stimulus once and it was an abortion. He made promises that never materialized and his opponents can have a field day with the cronyism. He is in no position to lead the nation because of the results of his first stimulus. Now I don't think that this administrations first stimulus was a true Keynesian effort, but it was the admin's effort and given what a cluster it was I doubt he will get much traction whether or not it is really needed now. There is just not the trust one needs to generate the support to spend this much of our kids money.

Sounds like you're saying that the dems are shoveling quarters into a payphone in a smartphone world.