There's a lot of buzz about this bill, specifically that Republicans need to stop standing in the way and let it pass. It's somewhat disturbing that the United States is to the point where we don't bother to talk about what is actually in the bill before we demand that it be passed, but that should surprise no one.

NPR does a decent job of summarizing the contents of the bill here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/09/09/140332084/parsing-obamas-jobs-bill

Quote :

"Tax cuts: $250 billion -Payroll tax rebate on first $5 million in payroll, which the president says will reach 98% of American companies, plus complete rebate for new hires or raises -Extending payroll tax cut -Extending 100% expensing of business investment -(A bunch of regulatory streamlining that is likely to have little effect and is bizarrely classed as a tax cut) -Tax credits for hiring unemployed veterans, particularly those with service-connected disabilities -$4,000 per worker for hiring workers who have been unemployed for more than six months Infrastructure: about $100 billion -$50 billion for new infrastructure projects -$10 billion for an infrastructure bank -$15 billion to rehab vacant and foreclosed homes/businesses -Some undisclosed sum for getting high speed wireless to "98% of American" -$25 million to rehab schools Direct assistance: About $100 billion -Continuing the extension of unemployment benefits -Various retraining/wage support ideas that are supposed to help the structurally displaced to transition into new careers. -$35 billion for preserving/hiring teachers, cops and firefighters -Federal assistance in refinancing to current mortgage rate."

A lot of this stuff is just tax cuts, funding, and stimulus. I'm not really seeing how there will be any substantial amount of job creation resulting from this bill - it might curb rising unemployment. One part seems particularly bad, though.

Quote :

"$4,000 per worker for hiring workers who have been unemployed for more than six months"

This actually encourages employers to hire minimum wage workers, only to replace them 6 months later. Since minimum wage jobs don't require much training, this is likely to happen. The employer gets a free tax credit, the federal deficit will be even worse, and no problems have actually been solved.

I have no clue how anyone could support this. From a libertarian perspective, this is obviously the wrong approach. From a Keynesian perspective, this is not nearly big enough to do any good.

I think the reality here is that the contents of the bill don't matter, since most Americans aren't going to bother reading it. Obama told NCSU today that we must pass this bill, and that it wasn't about "winning," it's about doing what's right for America. Whenever a politician is asking for you to rubber stamp their policies without critical thought, you should be suspicious, and that holds true in this example.

9/14/2011 6:20:13 PM

yep. we were asked to rubber-stamp Obamacare, the porkulus bill, and TARP, too.

9/14/2011 6:27:07 PM

Actually, whenever a politician tells you anything, assume that it's probably a bunch of bullshit and go do the research for yourself. Oh only, if only people would do that.

9/14/2011 6:28:26 PM

The stimulus created 1-3million jobs.

9/14/2011 6:31:55 PM

allegedly. after fixing the numbers and changing the definition of "created".

9/14/2011 6:33:43 PM

Quote :

"yep. we were asked to rubber-stamp Obamacare, the porkulus bill, and TARP, too. "

aaronburro, you're so fucking ignorant. TARP was passed under Bush, not Obama.

9/14/2011 6:34:09 PM

Quote :

"Fact Check: Did the stimulus create "zero" jobs? By: CNN Wire Staff (CNN) - The Statement: Texas Gov. Rick Perry said at Monday's CNN/Tea Party Debate that President Obama "had $800 billion worth of stimulus in the first round of stimulus. It created zero jobs. Four-hundred-plus billion in this package, and I can do the math on that one. Half of zero jobs is going to be zero jobs." The Facts: A more accurate jobs count may come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus bill, "increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million" in the second quarter of 2010 alone. The budget office also states that well over half a million jobs were funded in each of the other three quarters of 2010. "

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/13/fact-check-did-the-stimulus-create-zero-jobs/

9/14/2011 6:35:31 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro, you're so fucking ignorant. TARP was passed under Bush, not Obama."

That says nothing about whether it was rubber stamped by the public. We were told that it had to be passed or the entire financial system would collapse and everyone would die. Just like with the PATRIOT act.

^Great, so the stimulus creating greater than zero jobs. Does that mean that it created millions of jobs, as you have claimed?

9/14/2011 6:37:36 PM

Quote :

"Does that mean that it created millions of jobs, as you have claimed?"

Reading is fundamental. See my above post.

9/14/2011 6:38:37 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro, you're so fucking ignorant. TARP was passed under Bush, not Obama."

i'm well aware of that. it was still rubber stamped, you fucking imbecile.

Quote :

"Fact Check: Did the stimulus create "zero" jobs?"

who here said it created "zero" jobs? that's right, no one.

9/14/2011 6:40:28 PM

Quote :

"The Facts: A more accurate jobs count may come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus bill, "increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million" in the second quarter of 2010 alone. The budget office also states that well over half a million jobs were funded in each of the other three quarters of 2010. "

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/13/fact-check-did-the-stimulus-create-zero-jobs/

Quote :

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Economists gave generally positive reviews to President Obama's jobs plan Friday, with some estimating that at least 1 million jobs could be added in the next year if Congress passes the package."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/news/economy/obama_jobs_plan_impact/index.htm

9/14/2011 6:44:00 PM

While it may shock you, I don't find the CBO to be particularly credible, especially since they can only work with the numbers they're given.

It's impossible to measure how many jobs the stimulus (or this potential stimulus) will destroy or prevent from being created. The government doesn't have any money. The government is broke. Money has to be extracted from the population in order to fund these stimulus bills.

9/14/2011 6:48:50 PM

sooo we're just pretending that the healthcare bill went through with no push-back? goddamn some of you are dense.

9/14/2011 7:10:39 PM

people have rewritten history on healthcare reform. Obama wanted single payer but quickly conceded that by coming to the table with a compromised position. This was essentially like saying you have no aces or face cards at the start of a poker game. He then worked more with republicans to make a bipartisan bill and none of the republicans voted for it at the end of the day claimed it was "obamacare" and it was "shoved down their throats". Obama's weakness through the whole thing was worse than the GOP okie doke so he deserves all the blame because he could've easily shoved a single payer system down their throats from the get go.

Quote :

"TARP was passed under Bush, not Obama. "

sometimes its hard to tell the difference.

9/14/2011 7:31:00 PM

Please call this what is, a re-election ploy. There is zero chance this bill changes anything except 500b more funny money the fed is gonna have to print.

9/14/2011 8:46:42 PM

Quote :

"A more accurate jobs count may come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office"

lol

9/14/2011 9:03:05 PM

Which House Democrat has introduced the President's Job Bill?

I just did a search on http://house.gov/ and couldn't find it.

Does that mean he hasn't submitted the bill to Congress?

9/14/2011 9:11:05 PM

Quote :

"It's somewhat disturbing that the United States is to the point where we don't bother to talk about what is actually in the bill before we demand that it be passed, but that should surprise no one."

I mean, we just celebrated the 10th anniversary of being at that point, if you recall the Patriot Act.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 9:13 PM. Reason : read the thread, saw it's already been mentioned. good times.]

9/14/2011 9:13:22 PM

Quote :

"sooo we're just pretending that the healthcare bill went through with no push-back? goddamn some of you are dense."

no, but we were told just to pass it and find out what was in it later.

Quote :

"He then worked more with republicans to make a bipartisan bill "

who the fuck is re-writing history here, dude? Did you forget about the multiple times where republicans were literally locked out of the negotiating rooms?

Quote :

"Obama wanted single payer but quickly conceded that by coming to the table with a compromised position."

and, again, speaking of rewriting history, I don't recall Obama campaigning on single-payer, dude. it was the far left retards that went in there thinking they were gonna get it. or do you think the phrase "if you like your current insurance, you can keep it" really means "single-payer"?

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ]

9/14/2011 10:39:03 PM

yes that phrase does mean single payer just like for our single payer public school system "if you like your current private school, you can keep it"

9/14/2011 10:57:59 PM

there aren't enough for that post

9/14/2011 11:01:08 PM

I should mention that there is already a tax credit on the books for companies that hire a worker who has been unemployed for the previous 90 days.

Not sure what it is, but its supposedly substantial.

[Edited on September 14, 2011 at 11:07 PM. Reason : its just not as easy to say "$4K FOR HIRING THE UNEMPLOYED!!!"]

9/14/2011 11:06:50 PM

Well, at least we know WHY we haven't seen the bill in Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-balking-at-obamas-jobs-bill.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Quote :

"Some Democrats Are Balking at Obama’s Jobs Bill By JENNIFER STEINHAUER WASHINGTON — President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide. “I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has said he will put the bill on the legislative calendar but has declined to say when. He almost certainly will push the bill — which Mr. Obama urged Congress to pass “right now!” — until after his chamber’s recess at the end of the month; Mr. Reid has set votes on disaster aid, extensions for the Federal Aviation Administration and a short-term spending plan ahead of the jobs bill. Republicans have focused their attack on the tax increases that would help pay for the spending components of the bill. But Democrats, as is their wont, are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition. Some are unhappy about the specific types of companies, particularly the oil industry, that would lose tax benefits. “I have said for months that I am not supporting a repeal of tax cuts for the oil industry unless there are other industries that contribute,” said Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana. A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.” His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.” There are also Democrats, some of them senators up for election in 2012, who oppose the bill simply for its mental connection to the stimulus bill, which laid at least part of the foundation for the Republican takeover of the House in 2010. “I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week. While Mr. Reid, who is known for trying to protect Democrats from casting tough votes, may be delaying the bill to insulate his party, the White House has a tacit agreement with Senate Democrats that Mr. Obama be permitted to take his American Jobs Act around the country to try to sell it to voters. The White House is to brief Democratic senators on the granular aspects of the proposal on Thursday. The White House does enjoy support from many Democrats still. “I am so happy to hear them talking about the most important thing, which is jobs,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. As he barnstormed again on Wednesday, Mr. Obama told voters in North Carolina, “If you love me, you’ve got to help me pass this bill,” but even some members of Congress from that state may prefer to stay just friends. Senator Kay Hagan declined on Wednesday to say her support for the bill that Mr. Obama spent the day promoting in her state was indubitable. “We’ve got to have legislation that is supported by Democrats and Republicans,” she said. “I’m going to have to look at it. “ Representative Heath Shuler, another North Carolina Democrat, said Congress should tame the deficit before approving new spending for job programs. “The most important thing is to get our fiscal house in order,” said Mr. Shuler, a leader of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. “Then we can talk about other aspects of job creation.” Earlier in the week, David Axelrod, the president’s top political adviser, said in an interview with “Good Morning America” that the White House was “not in negotiation to break up” Mr. Obama’s bill, and that Congress would not have an option for an “à la carte menu.” But it is very likely that the bill will be cherry-picked for items that appeal to large swaths on both sides of the aisle, like the payroll tax cut and a job training program for the unemployed. Senate Democrats would certainly relish the idea of bringing numerous bills to the floor to fail — like those that would benefit first responders — potentially embarrassing the opposing Republicans. However, if Democrats end up dumping some of the more controversial methods of paying for the infrastructure and other big-ticket items in the bill — and most of them annoy Republicans or Democrats or both — either the administration or the House and Senate will still be stuck finding another way to pay for them. "

Word has it that a Republican Congressman is going to introduce an actual bill entitled the American Jobs Act of 2011, the name the President has been touting as he went around the country trying to put pressure on Republicans to pass the bill.

9/15/2011 8:52:06 AM

Quote :

"Word has it that a Republican Congressman is going to introduce an actual bill entitled the American Jobs Act of 2011"

Much like the Clear Skies Act of 2003, this will likely mean the exact opposite of what its title implies.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 9:25 AM. Reason : fortunately that one didn't pass

9/15/2011 9:24:48 AM

Quote :

""The Facts: A more accurate jobs count may come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus bill, "increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million" in the second quarter of 2010 alone. The budget office also states that well over half a million jobs were funded in each of the other three quarters of 2010. ""

So doing the math, that means it costs between $242,424 and $571,429 per job created. Do you honestly think that is efficient? We could have just paid those unemployed roughly the median income of the US for 5 years at that cost.

I dont think arguing the stimulus created NO jobs is a valid argument, but touting it as a success is equally ignorant. Yeah it created SOME jobs, but at what cost? Instead of ramming through a pork filled bill we could have come up with a more efficient jobs bill instead of claiming it was for shovel ready jobs that didnt exist. Just copy and paste his speech from the stimulus for the current jobs bill. Americans have every right to be suspicious

9/15/2011 10:17:29 AM

I have had the pleasure of managing and building an ARRA project. The paperwork was heinous. Davis-Bacon is laughable. Buy-American clauses add unnecessary cost and time to a project. The metric for "creating" jobs is "how many people were working on this project". The assumption was if the contractor did not get THIS PARTICULAR JOB, the workers would have been laid off. We were awarded the ARRA project in 2009. It was less than 6% of our sales for the year.

Infrastructure is typically a low-manhour form of construction. Roads, bridges, utilities, etc, the labor is 15-20% of the total cost of the project. Materials are close to 50%. Equipment is generally the rest.

Basically, the ARRA type of projects only helped other government agencies that were experiencing tax shortfalls get pending projects built.

The project I did was a Spray Irrigation System to offset reclaimed water from being put back into the source it was drawn out of.

IMHO, the money would have been better spent as a one time tax refund or handout to BUSINESSES.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

9/15/2011 10:46:53 AM

I actually didn't listen to Obama's speech, or really have any idea what the bill is about and I don't really care if it passes or not. I literally get emails every single day and several phone calls a week from recruiters looking to hire someone in my field. These aren't low paying jobs either, these are near 6 figure or greater salary full time jobs with benefits. I contrast this with the whole idea that "there are no jobs in America" and it just doesn't jive. The problem isn't lack of jobs, it's a lack of qualified individuals for the jobs that America is creating (namely tech). It all goes back to the fact that higher education in this country costs too much, and the barrier of entry for people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth (like myself) is just too fucking high.

So whatever, pass this bill, or don't. Lets just get finished with this stupid "create jobs" idea and work on fixing our education system and making it more accessible to the poor.

Quote :

"So doing the math, that means it costs between $242,424 and $571,429 per job created"

You do realize roughly 50% of ARRA were tax cuts and subsidies that had no other purpose but to appease the Republicans in Congress so they would actually pass the thing?

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 10:59 AM. Reason : :]

9/15/2011 10:57:30 AM

^^ that seems reasonable, I just don't get why people can't grasp the government is not efficient.

9/15/2011 10:58:21 AM

^ If we repealed all those regulations government imposes upon itself then a lot more jobs would be created while simultaneously lowering the deficit.

9/15/2011 11:05:08 AM

Sorry I'm missing a ^ I was referring to the 250 to 500k per job, but you are correct as well

9/15/2011 11:12:01 AM

regulations never have cost benefit.

contaminated water is never beneficial.

9/15/2011 11:45:52 AM

Quote :

"You do realize roughly 50% of ARRA were tax cuts and subsidies that had no other purpose but to appease the Republicans in Congress so they would actually pass the thing?"

Yes I am aware. And they werent the efficient tax cuts either, just like some of the tax cuts in the current bill are likewise not efficient. For example, a good amount of the tax cuts in the stimulus were "tax credits" ie $400 checks to old people who either paid off debt or put it into savings. W did it twice, and did not work either time. If the population gets a check during tough economy, its going to savings/debt payoff, not a new stereo. At least the majority.

But the other half to appease the Dems were wasteful projects that couldnt get passed before, like $40m to build a butterfly garden in florida, or millions in grants to study sea turtles. While it may create a few jobs, these are not efficient ways to create the quantity needed to curb unemployment.

An employer payroll tax holiday is a more efficient use, imo

9/15/2011 11:47:13 AM

Quote :

"It all goes back to the fact that higher education in this country costs too much, and the barrier of entry for people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth (like myself) is just too fucking high."

Define silver spoon. It doesn't seem to take a genius or an aristocrat to get a tech degree from a place like nc state.

9/15/2011 11:48:18 AM

The US is now a service/tech economy.

Manufacturing is GONE! For the economy to rebound, we need to level the playing field in the import/export trade to boost the affordability of American goods.

VAT/Consumption taxes would do this. Shifting the tax burden so that the goods would be taxed the same regardless of origin would vastly help America rebound

A jobs bill would be medicating the symptoms, not the cause.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/15/2011 12:00:43 PM

^^I never had to work a minute of my life until I graduated from college. I did work some, because I wanted some extra spending money for recreation, but I didn't have too. My parents were capable of paying for every single dime that went towards my education, needs (housing, food, transportation, etc....), and most of my leisure activities from age 0 to 21. Thanks to that, I'm making more money at age 27 than my dad and mom combined were making at age 47. There was absolutely no excuse for a motivated individual (not necessarily smart, just someone with the desire to learn) in my situation to not accomplish at least the same things I did.

Unfortunately, for mine/our generation, I'm the exception instead of the rule. There are far too many people in this country who don't have that opportunity because neither their parents, nor society, provide them with the things my parents provided me. They have to work twice as hard for twice as long and be twice as motivated just to have a chance. They will probably never be as educated or make as much as their parents, no matter how hard they work for it. It's not fair, nor equal, nor right any way you slice it.

9/15/2011 12:08:51 PM

^ what do you specifically propose we do?

Isnt this what affirmative action is for?

Isnt this how its been since beginning of man? Some are born into more fortunate situations than others. Unfortunately thats life. If you try too hard to "level the playing field" then you end up discriminating against others, like lower middle class.

9/15/2011 12:24:53 PM

^^ so how do we "fix" it? Do we tax the shit out of estates or inheritance so wealth cannot be transferred to one's children? I don't really know how you level the playing field without alienating those who have wealth. You need those people to invest and to pay taxes on their wealth.

9/15/2011 12:39:45 PM

Obviously, the solution is to reward failure and punish success. That's what makes America the greatest country in the world. If you work hard and provide something of value to society, you deserve to get pounded by the hammer of social justice.

9/15/2011 12:44:42 PM

^^^Yeah, it's true that there has always been and will always be have's and have not's. But the goal of a modern first world society should be to level the playing field as much as possible. Why in the hell are you comparing us to the beginning of man? Should we still be digging in the dirt with sticks and writing on cave walls as well? Should we still be living in a feudalistic society with rampant slavery and exploitation of the poor? No, we should be doing everything we can to give everyone the same freedoms and opportunities.

Instead, for approximately the last 30 years (and the numbers bear this out), the United States has been going in the opposite direction, with the have's getting much more than their fair share of the benefits of our society. This has led to the erosion of the middle class and exploitation of the poor. Doing everything we can to prevent those things from happening are the hallmarks of a first world society. Otherwise, what separates us from Guatemala besides more rich people?

For the record, my parents are Egyptian immigrants who went to Canada first, where I was born and my dad started working for the company that eventually moved him to North Carolina (they loved Canada, but hated snow). They were never wealthy, but the Canadian system of government and entitlements made it possible for them to establish themselves economically. I fear that if my parent's had immigrated to the United States instead (especially if it was 10 years later), they/me would have been fucked.

^^The blueprint for fixing it exists in basically every first world country except ours. I'm not rehashing them all here, but the basic idea is make education and healthcare cheap/free to all and do everything we can to help those who need it. The idea that not taxing people to provide those things so the "market" can take care of it instead is akin to believing in God. It's a fucking fantasy. The wealthy don't care about anything but getting wealthier. You talk to any CEO in this country and they'll tell you that if they could, they would either run their entire business themselves with 0 employees, or outsource it all to China/India.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : :]

9/15/2011 12:49:03 PM

^ you dont get rich by throwing it all away. The CEO you referred to has a fidiciary duty to make as much money as efficiently as possible. Its their duty to shareholders.

Quote :

"The blueprint for fixing it exists in basically every first world country except ours."

There is a reason why we are the most powerful country in the world. Sounds like you have the same concept as BO, and thats transforming us into an entitlement society like Europe, and we see how well thats working out for them. Bankruptcy, riots, welfare state.

There is a reason you started noticing a downfall around that time, its when entitlements started to pick up. Once someone gets something for free, they become dependent on it and unable to help themselves

9/15/2011 1:07:54 PM

lol @ referring to ANYTHING in the government as nonpartisan

9/15/2011 1:10:47 PM

Quote :

"There is a reason why we are the most powerful country in the world. Sounds like you have the same concept as BO, and thats transforming us into an entitlement society like Europe, and we see how well thats working out for them. Bankruptcy, riots, welfare state."

First of all, you're confusing us with China. Secondly, the US got to become as powerful as it was due to WWII and it's aftermath. Finally, what's going in Europe is a direct cause of the sub prime mortgage crisis and experiments in deregulation. The same thing happened to us, only it's far worse for our middle class/poor than it is for theirs.

And the free fall started around the time the religion of "Reaganomics" was born.

9/15/2011 1:17:52 PM

^^^^The real solution is staring you right in the face, and it's not "free/cheap" stuff for everybody. To attribute the success of some European nations to their health care and education system is to provide a simple answer where a complex one is needed. In a nutshell, their culture is superior to ours in nearly every respect.

It was not the government that gave you success - it was your parents. Upbringing is pretty much everything. If your parents give a shit and teach you to give a shit as well, then you're likely to succeed, even in a country like this where wealth is systematically extracted from the middle class on a daily basis.

The question then becomes: how do we make parents start caring? How do we get people to stop pumping out children that they can't possibly provide for? How do you get parents to start instilling a sense of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking in their children?

There isn't a silver bullet for those problems. The government can't "fix" culture. It can, however, severely damage it, and it's doing that right now. Look at our immigration policy. Look at the war on drugs. Look at the role religion has in our society and politics. Look at how the largest, most powerful institutions get bailed out, all while there's no credit available to small businesses.

We, as a society, need to stop looking to the government as the only solution. Soon, we'll have no choice. Families and communities need to step up to the plate, and history shows that they would if the government were not actively destroying communities. The playing field cannot be leveled by simply adding more legislation. We need to first repeal the legislation that is doing so much damage. We can't just keep telling people to depend on the federal government - we need to somehow revive individualism. It's not just optimal...it's going to be necessary.

9/15/2011 2:27:15 PM

Quote :

"The question then becomes: how do we make parents start caring? How do we get people to stop pumping out children that they can't possibly provide for? How do you get parents to start instilling a sense of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking in their children?"

Actually there could be legislation for that.

It's called a CHILD LICENSE.

9/15/2011 2:35:12 PM

I wish people would stop thinking about fixing this shit in the short term. It's extremely frustrating.

You can't fix the economy by cutting. While you MIGHT be saving money in the short term you actually aren't changing ANYTHING; if you are simply cutting and cutting but not actually smartly using the resources you have in order to put yourself in a position where you are better off, then what the fuck are you fixing aside from pinching pennies? From a long term perspective, cutting and cutting from everywhere you can only seems to be setting us up for disaster. If we keep cutting from education, somewhere down the road we are going to have a population of people who are less trained and educated to take on the jobs from the previous generations. On top of that, the quality of education will regress nationally. It's pretty much fact that this point that cutting taxes for the super rich is NEVER going to "trickle down" to the poor. Cutting defense weakens our military. Cutting anything is going to result in a inferior version of whatever it is you are cutting. Now, I understand that there are tradeoffs to situations like this; in tough times, I understand that it might be necessarily to ease up on something in order to focus on something else. Or, if the service or tool isn't needed, it would make sense to scale back a little and save money that doesn't need to be spent. However, it seems like the GOP is trying to solve ALL economic issues from putting anything they can on the chopping block. Solving economic issues by cutting everywhere you can in my opinion is an extremely piss poor approach to solve problems.

There is a saying "You gotta spend money to make money", and it MIGHT be applicable here. I think the jobs package is a great idea because it is focused on building infrastructre in America. Sure, it's going to take money to get these things going, but creating infrastructure is not only going to employ people, it's going to make the country better off and in turn is going to reap rewards for the future to sow monetarily and in regards to quality of life of the people in the areas where the projects are undertaken. I think it's a great idea specifically because of this investment oriented approach.

The sad thing is that the GOP will never go for it because it's going to involve spending to get it started. The most frustrating thing about the GOP complaining about Obama's spending is that I never hear examples of how exactly this spending is actually hurting the livelihood of these people. And forget just Fox News; what about the average joe complaining about this shit? How does Obama's spending affect their livelihood at all? I find it hard to believe that Obama spending a shit ton of money is putting these people in the poor house.

9/15/2011 2:51:54 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/14/cnn-poll-more-americans-trust-obama-on-economy-over-republicans-in-congress/

9/15/2011 3:34:19 PM

Quote :

"I think the jobs package is a great idea because it is focused on building infrastructre in America."

it's really not focused on that, though. only a 4th of it is going to infrastructure.

Quote :

"But the goal of a modern first world society should be to level the playing field as much as possible. "

no, not at all. it should be what you later posted:

Quote :

"No, we should be doing everything we can to give everyone the same freedoms and opportunities."

9/15/2011 6:33:07 PM

The policy of cutting social programs and shifting the tax burden to the demographics most hurt by the recession didn't work when Bush started it, it didn't work when the Republicans sent it to OBama, and it hasn't been working since Obama signed it.

Considering the "rich" haven't been taking their tax cuts over the past 10 years and created jobs like they were "supposed" to, the best thing the gov. can do now is to keep the poverty rate down and modernize technological infrastructure and hope businesses think of new things to invest in.

Obama Job's bill is way better than anything the Right has been saying for the past few years. Literally nothing the Republicans have said would help things have helped at all, which is not surprising (why would cutting social programs reduce poverty? why would tax cuts help jobs, when tax cuts preceded the rise in unemployment?).

We need to focus on higher education and research more than we have been though.

9/15/2011 10:48:13 PM

Quote :

"I wish people would stop thinking about fixing this shit in the short term. It's extremely frustrating. You can't fix the economy by cutting. While you MIGHT be saving money in the short term you actually aren't changing ANYTHING; if you are simply cutting and cutting but not actually smartly using the resources you have in order to put yourself in a position where you are better off, then what the fuck are you fixing aside from pinching pennies? From a long term perspective, cutting and cutting from everywhere you can only seems to be setting us up for disaster. If we keep cutting from education, somewhere down the road we are going to have a population of people who are less trained and educated to take on the jobs from the previous generations. On top of that, the quality of education will regress nationally. It's pretty much fact that this point that cutting taxes for the super rich is NEVER going to "trickle down" to the poor. Cutting defense weakens our military. Cutting anything is going to result in a inferior version of whatever it is you are cutting. Now, I understand that there are tradeoffs to situations like this; in tough times, I understand that it might be necessarily to ease up on something in order to focus on something else. Or, if the service or tool isn't needed, it would make sense to scale back a little and save money that doesn't need to be spent. However, it seems like the GOP is trying to solve ALL economic issues from putting anything they can on the chopping block. Solving economic issues by cutting everywhere you can in my opinion is an extremely piss poor approach to solve problems. "

I def. agree with everything here.

It's almost like the GOP wants thing to get worse, to increase their chances of getting elected.

They were never on about the debt/deficit as now, and their staunch gov-must-fail position over the past few years have only helped make things worse.

[Edited on September 15, 2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

9/15/2011 10:55:08 PM

Quote :

"why would tax cuts help jobs, when tax cuts preceded the rise in unemployment?"

that's about as disingenuous and argument as I've ever seen. The unemployment of 2007 and 2008 had nothing to do with tax cuts and everything to do with a melting economy. You could maybe say that it didn't completely stop the meltdown, but to try and tie it in as a cause of unemployment in a "this before that" fallacy is absurd

9/15/2011 10:56:54 PM