Obama's Job Speech

[RobinFinderson]

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.

Summary: We are effed. No matter who is in charge, there are no short-term viable solutions to the unemployment problem. We shouldn't do anything for the remainder of Obama's presidency, because he can't be trusted to make it work, and once we get a Republican president, the best we can hope for is policy that will make the US a decent place for multinationals to set up shop, even though that policy will only contribute to the US economy to the extent that the tiny handful of employees deem to spend money in the US between jet-setting around the world.

That't sounds like resignation to 2nd-tier quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.

[WashingtonCoug]

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

[RobinFinderson]

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

With 'napper's policy, it won't be a smartphone world for long. Who will be able to afford smartphones?

[il Padrino Ute]

that's a really helpful and insightful contribution

It's accurate and I make no apologies for pointing out how inept Obama really is. It needs to be said because there are still far too many who believe he is competent. Until they wake up, I won't stop beating this drum.

[Jacob]

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.

All the bolded sections are either false, or unsupportable by the evidence. Unfortunately, the rest of your argument relies on those false or faulty assumptions.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Why not just shift policy on the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline (transports oil from the Athabasca in northeastern Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma)?

That alone could create 300k jobs to build and run the beast, and provide a substantive supply of oil which does not rely on ocean shipment for delivery. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds of Pres Obama supporters who are pipeline opponents just might cause a few heads to explode.

[RobinFinderson]

All the bolded sections are either false, or unsupportable by the evidence. Unfortunately, the rest of your argument relies on those false or faulty assumptions.

If the government buys contracts to build roads, bridges, railway, etc, how is that not guaranteed job creation? Those things don't build themselves...

And I described Republican plans as 'tax cuts and austerity' followed by the question, 'right?' I don't claim to understand Republican plans except by general concepts -- limit spending (austerity) and cut taxes. How does limiting spending NOT result in the guaranteed loss of jobs to which that spending was support?

What the heck is true and supportable by the evidence?

[RobinFinderson]

Why not just shift policy on the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline (transports oil from the Athabasca in northeastern Alberta to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma)?

That alone could create 300k jobs to build and run the beast, and provide a substantive supply of oil which does not rely on ocean shipment for delivery. The cognitive dissonance created in the minds of Pres Obama supporters who are pipeline opponents just might cause a few heads to explode.

According to Jacob, paying for a project like this is not guaranteed to create jobs. Go figure.

[Jacob]

If the government buys contracts to build roads, bridges, railway, etc, how is that not guaranteed job creation? Those things don't build themselves...

And I described Republican plans as 'tax cuts and austerity' followed by the question, 'right?' I don't claim to understand Republican plans except by general concepts -- limit spending (austerity) and cut taxes. How does limiting spending NOT result in the guaranteed loss of jobs to which that spending was support?

What the heck is true and supportable by the evidence?

Who pays the wages of the new hiree? Where does he/it get that money? What would the person who had the money taken from them to pay for the the new job done with the money had he been allowed to keep it? What effect does increase federal debt and uncertainty due to increased deficit spending have on consumer confidence i.e. private spending and private business decision making?

How many jobs were created by the last stimulus?

It doesn't appear you have thought this through very deeply.

As for the austerity. I'm not aware of any republican plan that cuts spending this year any more than has already been agreed to by the president. So I have no idea where you are coming from. But you have certainly mischaracterized the republican position and left out what they actually want to do i.e. largely fix the tax and regulatory scheme.

[RobinFinderson]

Who pays the wages of the new hiree?

Private companies that receive government contracts to build stuff.

Where does he/it get that money?

From the government, which in turn gets the money from borrowing, rearranging expenditure, and taxing.

What would the person who had the money taken from them to pay for the the new job done with the money had he been allowed to keep it?

Judging from what is happening now, people/institutions with a mountain of liquid capital would sit on the sidelines, try to maintain holdings, and wait for an economy where goods and services are once again in demand. What I want to hear from conservatives is an explanation for why making it safer and easier to sit on money is going to encourage people to stop sitting on it, given the crummy economy. Taxes and the threat of taxes are an incentive to 'shit or get off the pot.'

What effect does increase federal debt and uncertainty due to increased deficit spending have on consumer confidence i.e. private spending and private business decision making?

Federal debt and deficit spending are serious problems for which there may be no solution. We can cut these things by going the austerity route, or we can cut these things by going the taxation route, or we can go for a mix of the two. We can also default, or soft-default via structured inflation. There are no alternatives that won't erode consumer confidence.

How many jobs were created by the last stimulus?

I don't know. Some. Some were also preserved (many public sector jobs).

It doesn't appear you have thought this through very deeply.

Don't be a dick, Jacob. I'm part of a shrinking pool of people on the board that is willing to engage you, and try to maintain some civility when I do it. Participation on CUF will be less rewarding as that pool shrinks.

As for the austerity. I'm not aware of any republican plan that cuts spending this year any more than has already been agreed to by the president. So I have no idea where you are coming from. But you have certainly mischaracterized the republican position and left out what they actually want to do i.e. largely fix the tax and regulatory scheme.

Anyone who thinks we can make enough spending cuts to seriously address the debt and deficit needs to call that approach what it is -- austerity. Fixing the economy by fixing the tax and regulation situation is a huge gamble too, since it essentially makes it safer to sit on capital and wait for better times. Where is the evidence that it would work? And really, how bad is the regulatory situation? We obviously need some regulation, and some of it is outdated and/or ineffective. But how bad is the regulatory situation as a whole? Regulation is there for a good reason.

[Goatnapper'96]

Summary: We are effed. No matter who is in charge, there are no short-term viable solutions to the unemployment problem. We shouldn't do anything for the remainder of Obama's presidency, because he can't be trusted to make it work, and once we get a Republican president, the best we can hope for is policy that will make the US a decent place for multinationals to set up shop, even though that policy will only contribute to the US economy to the extent that the tiny handful of employees deem to spend money in the US between jet-setting around the world.

That't sounds like resignation to 2nd-tier quality of life for the vast majority of Americans.

In the short term yes we are effed and any trying to kick it down the road will likely only make the situation worse. There is nothing in this plan that seeks to fix the systemic issues of competitiveness that need to be fixed in order to make the investment in infrastructure purposeful. Right now it looks to me to be creating a few short term jobs for some Union buddies. Not a great idea but better than the last one where so much money went to public employee union buddies, who are now losing their jobs anyway.

Robin we have subsidized folks' lifestyles with money we don't have. There isn't enough money to do that. Yes, for those whose lives were subisidized with money we did not have it is going to suck once somebody stops giving us the money to continue to do that. You think we can finance the lifestyle the US government has been going into debt to provide for everyone? This issue has been growing for a long time and at some point in time we need to face that reality.

I personally think one can still be upwardly mobile in the US, but it is going to require a more educated workforce. The days of graduating from HS and getting a good Union job are likely gone for a while.

Note this is not a call for tax cuts and whatnot. I think a plan that makes our tax structure more competitive in a global economy and also increases revenues to closer to 20% of GDP is a good idea for a lot of reasons above and beyond US unemployment rates. However, increased government spending is not the answer to what ills the US. We are losing jobs because we are not internationally competitive and we need to adjust to the new world. Short term that adjustment is going to cause pain but long term we will be better for it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

According to Jacob, paying for a project like this is not guaranteed to create jobs. Go figure.

This will be a privately-funded $17B project. No stimulus money should be required, but projects like this seem to find their way into Uncle Sucker's piggy bank.

You are correct, infrastructure spending correlates closely with job creation. You are also correct in inferring that the Republicans are merely rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic keeps sinking, all the while claiming to be saving the world. Cutting $1T over a decade is small potatoes when we are borrowing $1.3T+ every year during the same time.

The problem I have with the stimulus in general is the 'broken window' theory. If a window is broken in a baker's shop, he will spend $200 with the local glazier to fix it. The glazier will take that $200 of 'new' capital and spend it with the grocer down the street, who then spends it at the shoe store. Thus the broken window led to $200 each being spent at the glazier, the grocer, and the cobbler's shops for a total of $600 of 'new' spending in town. But what this ignores is the fact that the money was created by eliminating the $200 the baker planned to spend at the tailor's shop purchasing a new suit. The whole thing is a Three Card Monte. If it truly worked, then the best form of stimulus for the town would be to go around throwing bricks through all the windows.

I think that the entitlement system could use a few tweaks but that is the wrong place to look for major solutions (eg. increase the amount of means testing, perhaps raise the retirement over a decade, possibly begin a drug-free policy as a requirement to obtain welfare - probably not a ban on MJ or alcohol or tobacco though, almost unenforceable). Some places for some massive cuts in bureaucracy are the Dept of Energy, Dept of Transportation (but probably leave the air traffic control system as it exists), the Dept of Education, and probably the Dept of Defense could stand some massive cuts (leaving Iraq will cut the budget by quite a bit), and let the Navy regulate the nuclear power industry because they are damn good at it and already drive most of the innovation in the industry.

End most of the War on Drugs. Release all non-violent drug offenders (users, not necessarily dealers) from prison, put them on probation, and get them in drug rehab programs. Housing them in prison is a huge and unnecessary expense. Decriminalize, control, and tax MJ.

I still believe the various states should pay for their own infrastructure construction projects through bonds, etc, the way we do for sports facilities. If sufficient commerce-related reasons do not exist to justify the project, the perhaps it isn't truly necessary.

Institute, through executive order, a 2-year moratorium on all new federal regulations. Then roll back one regulation per week through the 2-year period. Tell the EPA to pound sand on their next regulation which will eliminate 8% of our power capacity.

Freeze all NEW regulations on nuclear power plants, allowing the plant to be built to comply will all regulations in place at the beginning of construction, but do not force them to modify the plant design every time a new tweak occurs. (Make an exception for obviously major safety designs, if they happen during construction)

[NorthwestUteFan]

Don't be a dick, Jacob. I'm part of a shrinking pool of people on the board that is willing to engage you, and try to maintain some civility when I do it. Participation on CUF will be less rewarding as that pool shrinks.

I agree. It is probably OK if we are assholes to each other in sports-related threads on this forum, but it is not asking too much to maintain a passionate discussion without any hint of personal attacks. We are all adults here and should treat each other with respect.

I personally think one can still be upwardly mobile in the US, but it is going to require a more educated workforce. The days of graduating from HS and getting a good Union job are likely gone for a while.

By the same token, and this is a discussion for another thread, it is possible that we have entirely too MANY people going to college these days. Our student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt for the first time in history.

If little Johnny wants to be a professional of some sort, or get a degree in an employable field, then great, send him to college. But the kids who are getting loans and grants for underwater basketweaving (fill in the blank) majors, maybe it is time to dial back on the federal support for unemployable majors.
NOTE: I am not saying those kids do not have the right to have those majors, I only believe they are not entitled to federal funds for them. Still that statement will be seen as a sin greater than heresy by some.

[Jacob]

Don't be a dick, Jacob. I'm part of a shrinking pool of people on the board that is willing to engage you, and try to maintain some civility when I do it. Participation on CUF will be less rewarding as that pool shrinks.

Sorry to have offended you. I don't believe I've ever called you a name. It just doesn't seem to me that you understand how all this works. Maybe that was because you simplified it so much in your post. Maybe it is because of our different ideologies. You are a leftist and I think leftists have ignored the long list of historical failures of their policies. Either way. I still think you are wrong and your clarification didn't clear it up. I remain unconvinced that the government is a net job creator, and that is exactly what you are claiming i.e. that Obama's spending proposals are guaranteed to create jobs while republicans merely want to cut spending from this year's budget. That last part is clearly not true as you can see in the votes for the debt ceiling where republicans voted to cut spending over 10 years, but nothing this year or next.

[old_gregg]

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.

i'm not sure that analysis is accurate. it's not only a question of jobs created, but of jobs that still exist in the short term because of stimulus funding that otherwise would have been lost. the number might not be too different, but it's an important distinction.