Jobs Act

[Bubba Grizz]

I was probably one of the few who watched this in Green Bay last Thursday. Most everyone was at the stadium watching that guy who says he has the moves like Jager but really doesn't. For the most part I am very excited about what he is proposing but in all honesty I could be talked into buying a freezer while living in the arctic. I'm sure someone here could explain the errors of my optimism.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama bluntly challenged Congress Monday to act immediately on his new jobs plan, brandishing a copy of the legislation in the Rose Garden and demanding: "No games, no politics, no delays."

Surrounded by police officers, firefighters, teachers, construction workers and others he said would be helped by the $447 billion package, the president said the only thing that would block its passage would be lawmakers deciding it wasn't good politics to work with him. "We can't afford these same political games, not now," Obama said.

The president said he was sending the package to Congress later Monday, after unveiling it last week in a speech to a joint session of Congress. Then he's heading out to try to sell it to the public, on Tuesday in Ohio — home state of House Speaker John Boehner — and Wednesday in North Carolina.

At the same time, the Democratic National Committee is backing up the effort with a new ad campaign in politically key states from Nevada to New Hampshire.

More at http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-congr ... 31593.html

[Boogahz]

I found the first half of that speech to be the worst ever given by Obama to the point that I almost turned the television off.

[masteen]

HURR DA JERB KREATORS R GUNNA TAKE THURR MONEY TO HAITI BECAUSE TAXES ARE COMANIST!!!

But yeah, I think he wanted to make sure he broke down his message into tiny fragments that even the dumbest could digest, clearly present each segment as an existing bipartisan concept, and spell out that the hard work of paying for this plan is already done.

He's trying to make sure that when this gets shat on by the House and filibustered in the Senate, that the Repubs take the blame. As a historical speech, it was shit. But that's American politics in 2011.

[Asheran Mojomaster]

I watched some of this on TV today and, IMO, why not? I hope it gets passed. I'm not sure what impact it will have, positive or negative, but at this point...trying anything is better than doing nothing. I'm actually pretty against most of Obama's fiscal policies and ideas, but sometimes you gotta roll the dice if ya know what I mean. He had some good points, and it seems like it has a pretty good chance at being more positive than negative.

Honestly, I am more interested in seeing what happens with the Repubs now. I really think that he has put it squarely on them. If they don't pass this and things continue to get worse it will look bad for them. If they pass it and it works out well, it will look good for Obama and they would look good for working with him on something that actually had some success. If they pass it and it fails, it will look bad on Obama and they can say that they tried his way and it just did not work.

So, I think politically, the best move for them is to pass it, but at the same time...I never know what those people are going to do.

[Avestan]

It won't get passed beacuse it relies almost 100% on new taxes. Republicans just are not going to pass it.

To have a real shot, it would have needed to involve at least some cuts. Too bad - I was optimistic about something getting done.

[Aslanna]

It won't get passed beacuse it relies almost 100% on new taxes. Republicans just are not going to pass it.

Then they'll need to give a good reason. Although the average American has a short attention span so come Nov 2012 most would have forgotten that the GOP fucked them so that their rich buddies could buy another jet or afford another illegal immigrant gardener.

[Jice Virago]

It won't get passed beacuse it relies almost 100% on new taxes. Republicans just are not going to pass it.

To have a real shot, it would have needed to involve at least some cuts. Too bad - I was optimistic about something getting done.

This is a perfect example of why I cannot take you seriously anymore, at least in the context of debate. The package is ging to be funded by shit already on the books. But hey, lets channel Eric Cantor and just kill it if you don't get to cut social safety net programs. Another potentially good effort stalled by idealogs who want to take SS/Medicare hostage. Unfortunately, the rotten tooth hillbillies that snap into line every time the corperate masters say "Jesus/Guns/Gays/Nigger in the Whitehouse!" are too stupid to grasp how massively removed from their needs the current "conservative" agenda actually is, or you would have a REAL tea party revolution on your hands.

[Avestan]

You assumed I was against it. I am not. I am just saying that it won't get passed. I can't take you seriously because you assumed there is no way we could ever agree on anything because I tend to vote for people with (R) next to their names.

And to Aslanna - I don't think it will hurt Republicans at all to stonewall on this.They are riding a wave of people who want government cut right now. This is completely in line with that philosophy. There are no cuts in this bill.

[Avestan]

The biggest problem with this bill is that Obama knew it had no chance to pass when he proposed it. It was billed as bi-partisan, but that is a farce. It is a political stunt and not a true effort to pass a bill.

We need a jobs bill. This one is not perfect, but would be better than nothing. If there were some cuts built in, it might actually have a chance at passing.

This is just one more instance of a politician grandstanding for votes rather than actually focusing on getting something done. Obama certainly is not the only one doing this - they all do - but let's not pretend that this is a true compromise bill.

[Aslanna]

Who are these people? They want cuts in things like pointless defense spending not actual programs that benefit people like Social Security and Medicare. But oh noes Republicans wont agree to those sort of cuts.

Either way I don't think Obama should cave like he did with the debt ceiling thing. I think you're wrong though that it wont hurt Republicans. I guess we'll see!

[Bubba Grizz]

During the speech I thought I heard a lot about tax cuts and breaks. I especially liked the one about $1500 to married families and such.

[masteen]

But those are only for poor people. The rest is eliminating tax loopholes for the oil industry, private jets, hedge fund assholes, ect. You know, the people Republicans actually care about.

[Avestan]

Who are these people? They want cuts in things like pointless defense spending not actual programs that benefit people like Social Security and Medicare. But oh noes Republicans wont agree to those sort of cuts.

Either way I don't think Obama should cave like he did with the debt ceiling thing. I think you're wrong though that it wont hurt Republicans. I guess we'll see!

He won't cave, but it still won't get signed. That was the point of proposing this unpassable legislation. He is throwing a bone to all of you who saw him cave once so that you might actually show up on election day.

I will make no grandiose predictions about the upcoming election, but Obama is in trouble right now. It's the economy, stupid.

[pyrella]

How is it 'new taxes' when they are removing 'tax breaks' from existing taxes? Oh noes, they have to pay the same as everyone else?

It will be paid for from removing...breaks for something other people already have to do.

Also it's a farce to assume that removing these will remove job creation, as they are in place now, and mother fuckers don't seem to be creating very many jobs, do they?

That's almost as bad as Perry trying to say 0 jobs have been created since the last stimulus package.

I don't really see what the complaint is, yes you'll be paying 300k in taxes vs my 25k in taxes - yet you're making and bringing home 12x as much as me. I'm not jealous or bitter about the amount of cash said rich bitch rakes in, I just want equal footing - if you're only getting taxed 2-10%, I would like to only be taxed 2-10%. Then again, I am kind of fan of all these socialist services we have, like schools, emergency response, roads, etc and I'm not sure where they'd get paid for then.

I'm still trying to figure out why a consumptive tax isn't the best way to go - it seems like it put everyone on equal footing. If you're thrifty with your money, you pay less taxes, if you buy more crap, you pay more.

[*~*stragi*~*]

It's still not going to create jobs. There is no demand in the US anymore and with corporations shipping jobs overseas and laying off people by the tens of thousands they are only making it worse. They have cut benefits left and right, pay increases have become worthless to the point that you make less money year over year AFTER a raise.. people are in so much debt from shady lending. Gas prices are still fucking insane and artificially inflated.

The only way this is going to get better via extreme corporate regulation of a massive country wide default on debt.

[Avestan]

I support the last two posts except for the regulation bit.

At the end of the day, we are in a very deep hole. All of us helped to dig it and we are not going to be out of it for a long time. If we keep trying short term solutions, we may never get out of it (Japan). Longer term, we need to project a stable tax system so that private money can feel good about making long term investments.

Look, I am not a believer in trickle down economics, but I am a believer in the concept that a very few exceptional people create massive opportunities for the rest of us peons. We want those people to choose the United States. Let them be rich I say.

[Aslanna]

At the end of the day, we are in a very deep hole. All of us helped to dig it and we are not going to be out of it for a long time.

Speak for yourself.. I didn't help dig shit.

[Canelek]

Lol, "we" dug this hole? Fuck that garbage.

[kyoukan]

You assumed I was against it. I am not. I am just saying that it won't get passed. I can't take you seriously because you assumed there is no way we could ever agree on anything because I tend to vote for people with (R) next to their names.

And to Aslanna - I don't think it will hurt Republicans at all to stonewall on this.They are riding a wave of people who want government cut right now. This is completely in line with that philosophy. There are no cuts in this bill.

You're mistaking republicans campaigning for the GOP nomination among other republicans with people who want government cut right now. Thankfully at least around 50% of you are not irredeemably stupid.

Come election time, you are going to see an onslaught of coverage on exactly how badly the GOP has fucked your economy over the last 10 years. Barack Obama is only treading water right now when it comes to the economy, but he certainly isn't at fault for it.

[Avestan]

Most polls state that people favor something along the lines of 75% cuts 25% tax revenues (obviously this is an average with the polar opinions dominating).

People blame the president and his administration even if the blame lies in congress. That is just the way it works. Banking on the American public somehow growing up in the next year and being able to attribute blame to the hundreds of people in the House and Congress as opposed to the single easy target in front is wishful thinking on your part to say the least.

It's the economy, stupid. It's the economy, stupid. It's the economy, stupid. Obama is in big trouble if that does not change. I do not think that it will.

[Avestan]

I know there was likely a Weiner effect here as well, but if the economy does not change, this is what will happen to the President:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t2

I do not see a lot of Republican blame going on there in a crazy democratic district.

[Aabidano]

Come election time, you are going to see an onslaught of coverage on exactly how badly the GOP has fucked your economy over the last 10 years. Barack Obama is only treading water right now when it comes to the economy, but he certainly isn't at fault for it.

As it hasn't happened yet I don't expect it to, had they the cohones to throw the rocks they were handed Bush term 2 wouldn't have happened.

From the bits and pieces I've seen from the republicans Romney is the only one with a chance to win and he won't get the nod. If he does he'll be so hobbled as to be useless, assuming he hasn't agreed to it already by signing up with Norquist.

Right or wrong the President is who gets blamed.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Government cannot create long term job stability. The jobs have to come from the private sector and government spending is NOT going to do anything to help it. How much did we just get billed for from the last stimulus that was supposed to be a job creating fix? This is not going to do jack shit for our economy and is just going to be yet another enormous initiative by this twit that we will be paying for.

At this point, I am all for regulating some industry. I am all for them removing oil from being traded. I am NOT for adding the "rich tax", but I would not be opposed for an enormous CEO tax that would levy a giant tax on anyone who makes a certain percentage above the median average of the workers in their company. I am all for taxing the companies that offshore to the point that they can't even sell services or goods to the U.S. and remain competitive.

[Knarlz]

Surrounded by police officers, firefighters, teachers, construction workers and others he said would be helped by the $447 billion package..............

This is one reason why I believe that there would be almost no new jobs created by this bill. If this money is funneled through state and local governments, almost all of it would be used to "not fire" the highest paid "public service" employees.

Construction work is the possible exception. Even this is a boondoggle when funneled through the state (At least in NY) (The Fed money from the Bush incentive era is just getting spent now, The gravel is local, the machinery is from Japan, the iron and steel is from China, what’s left after the contractor buys a new boat goes to a few highly paid union laborers)

I suppose new teachers could be hired at a reasonable cost. It actually might help the 47% high school graduation rate in Buffalo NY. An entry level teacher only makes 1/4 of what the lifetime pension pays an outgoing teacher. So you could hire lots of them but there still would be no books.

You could also hire firemen and policemen at a semi reasonable cost but no cars or equipment is there.

You can mandate that all this money be used only to new hire new employees but if done through the public service sector, there is no infistructure to support them and they will provide little if any benefit for their efforts. They all get canned when that money dries up anyway.
The use of this money for payroll tax breaks for “new” companies will have no effect. 90% of new companies fail and it has nothing to do with payroll tax. Besides, at least here, those 10% that don’t fail, leave the area when they can’t get a bank loan to expand.
None the less, the prez has to propose something, even though it won’t get past the house and even it does, it wouldn’t create enough jobs to put a dent in the situation, even when those few jobs wouldn’t appear for years.
If you want to create sustainable jobs, it has to be in a growth area. The only one I can think of in the US is the energy field. (that and the government! (NY gov has actually grown and not laid off a single person the last 5 years))
Giving breaks to big oil to develop US resources would be a poor idea. Not because they make too much money already but I a believer in keeping our resources in the ground and sucking up the rest of the worlds now. Although we need to become far less non renewable energy dependant somehow.
I’m not sure how to do that really either,
ethanol is almost a joke, can’t pipe it, doubled the cost of corn here, and an unverified source claimed that to replace all the US oil, coal and natural gas use just in the US with ethanol you would have to plant 100% of the worlds areaible land with corn.
Wind farms, some use but all that I have heard of only are viable with large % government subsidies.
Solar:

Buffalo state collage is proud to announce the start up of their new solar facility. Cost savings are estimated to be $3000 a year over the next 25 years

To bad it cost 1.7 million to build. This is certainly a better option in southern climes.
Nukes. I use to think these would be the wave of the future. Now not so much.
Coal. Not sustainable but we have lots. If you could burn coal cleanly and also not destroy the environment digging it……..
Natural gas. We have tons of this. I suspect fracking is far more evil in the long run though.
In conclusion, if you want to blow billions in bucks on jobs, do so in sustainable fields, presently there are none except non renewable energy. If you want to create temporary jobs, don’t feed the bloated (cost wise) public service sector but build/fix roads bridges and sponsor looser solar/wind energy.

[Avestan]

Good post.

Also worth noting (right or wrong) that this recent Solyndra debacle is going to make it extremely difficult for the government to do any direct investing in renewable energy. Politicians will not touch it with a 30 foot pole.

[kyoukan]

Government cannot create long term job stability. The jobs have to come from the private sector and government spending is NOT going to do anything to help it.

For over two decades, the US government was the only buyer of microchips in the world and they bought them all from US companies. There are government warehouses filled with microchips from the 60s and 70s, all purchased by Uncle Sam that have never seen the inside of a piece of electronics. Silicon Valley and the trillions and trillions of dollars it has generated over the years would not exist if it was not for the fed.

The US government is the majority revenue source for untold thousands of companies since WW2 that have innovated into wealthy corporations. Boeing wouldn't exist if it was not for the federal government. The railroads would never have been built without massive investment from the US government. Interstate highways would still be dirt roads if it wasn't for the feds. There are hundreds of thousands of American jobs that are dependent on federal money.

Reagan and Bush era tax policy has all but completely killed revenue for innovative ideas because innovators can't get any support. Do you think huge corporations like GE innovate? Fuck you. Irresponsible globalization has driven major employers to 3rd world wastelands where wage slavery is still legal. In ten years you are not going to have anything left but credit card debt and a handful of super billionaires with all your money. And the hilarious thing is, once your economy crashes again (that is going to make 2008 look like a minor inconvenience(, you are going to be first in line with a pitchfork and a torch once you lose whatever shitty job you have to some fucking chinaman in a dirty undershirt. The sad thing is you'll probably still blame liberals that have been trying to tell you how the world works since day one.

Your country is still at the top of a very long, bumpy hill that your greed, stupidity and ignorance carried up to. All that money and not a single person without enough leadership to tell you how to handle it.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

You do understand that an economy cannot sustain itself on government work right? Not that it matters one bit since you don't live here....

[Aabidano]

You do understand that an economy cannot sustain itself on government work right? Not that it matters one bit since you don't live here....

Looking at Japan's 20 years of stimulus I think we see where that route goes. For the average Japanese person it hasn't been so bad from all reports. *Edit - Not to say they're in a good place

The knee jerk response to kill it all off is more unrealisticl, Kyou is correct in that without govt spending much of what the world economy is based on wouldn't exist. Alternative energy, biotech, etc.. Are a big piece of the future, we can get a stake and take the lead as we have in many other areas to the nation's benefit or wait and buy it from someone else later.

For alternative energy in particular I don't expect the private sector to jump in strongly until there's a clear path to profit. There's no way you could expect Perry to support anything but more of the same in energy policy.

[Aabidano]

The tax breaks currently in place for companies who employ US based workers in R&D positions are a great type of incentive. If you aren't paying US taxes you aren't eligible, there are stipulations on that part which I don't recall.

[kyoukan]

You do understand that an economy cannot sustain itself on government work right? Not that it matters one bit since you don't live here....

is that really all that you took from that post or are you just conceding the argument?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

You are such an incredible socialist retard that you have no functional grasp of a society that is capitalist. All you can spout about is fucking roads and other horseshit? Those jobs are GONE once the money runs out....then they have to come up with some tax increase to fund them again. I guess most of the founders of the country are wrong and you are right. Buffoon.

[Zaelath]

I'm still trying to figure out why a consumptive tax isn't the best way to go - it seems like it put everyone on equal footing. If you're thrifty with your money, you pay less taxes, if you buy more crap, you pay more.

A pure consumption tax puts (say) a 20% tax on every dollar a poor person earns (since they generally have to spend it all to survive), by comparison a CEO on $2 million a year can live comfortably on $200K a year taking into account a requirement to spend a bit more to do that kind of job, which means they get taxed 2% and can earn yet more income on the remaining $1.8 million.

[Zaelath]

You are such an incredible socialist retard that you have no functional grasp of a society that is capitalist. All you can spout about is fucking roads and other horseshit? Those jobs are GONE once the money runs out....then they have to come up with some tax increase to fund them again. I guess most of the founders of the country are wrong and you are right. Buffoon.

I don't know of an economy in the world that is more pure capitalist, and yet you're blaming socialism for your woes. ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

There is just no way to make anyone who believes in a socialistic government to understand. This country will completely crumble as a socialist nation...if there is not some revolution before that point to eliminate it. It doesn't matter what the outside world thinks....the country was framed as a solution to escape what was deemed unfair taxation and was built on blood and hard work. It has spent the last 50 years crumbling as we lean more and more towards a welfare/nanny state.

Government spending will never pick up and boost our economy long term. It simply cannot sustain it. The only fix for it is going to be from private sector jobs being created and it is going to take some type of manufacturing jobs here to make it go. There is going to have to be something done about the influx of cheap goods coming into the country and our jobs going out. The bottom line is that we have to punish the companies who leave the country and reward the ones who hire here.

[Aabidano]

What on earth do you use as a definition of socialism? I don't think it's the same as everyone else's.

I'm expecting to hear this from a guy at work in a day or so, he listens the same talking head as you.

[Aslanna]

What on earth do you use as a definition of socialism? I don't think it's the same as everyone else's.

I'm expecting to hear this from a guy at work in a day or so, he listens the same talking head as you.

Obama. Or democrats in general = socialism. Duh. Just like the crazy Republicans and tea party nutjobbers have been preaching for the past 2.5+ years.

Oh and he also apparently equals Hitler. Which is funny because I didn't think Nazi Germany was a hotbed of socialism. But it just goes to show you how stupid those people are.

It's also funny how "government spending" is bad unless it's one the things that benefit you personally such as I don't know.. Infrastructure. 'You' being those previously mentioned crazies and nutjobbers.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Are you fucking kidding me? Nazi Germany was enormously socialist. Hitler wasn't as much into it as he had other plans, but the Nazi party was founded as an anti-capitalist and anti-communist nationalist party. Hitler didn't start it, he just took it over and grew it into something else entirely.

[Aslanna]

Fascism != socialism. Read a book.

[Sueven]

Let's stop talking about Hitler.

I'm still trying to figure out why a consumptive tax isn't the best way to go - it seems like it put everyone on equal footing. If you're thrifty with your money, you pay less taxes, if you buy more crap, you pay more.

Because it's massively regressive. Poor people use a greater percentage of their money on consumption, therefore poor people will shoulder a disproportionately large tax burden. It's not fair even if you don't believe in progressive taxation.

Look, I am not a believer in trickle down economics, but I am a believer in the concept that a very few exceptional people create massive opportunities for the rest of us peons. We want those people to choose the United States. Let them be rich I say.

This is sort of true but vastly oversimplified. While I think the great man theory of business is vastly overstated, you're right that certain dynamic people or firms create a disproportionate amount of wealth and opportunity, and that a major key to American economic survival is attracting and retaining them. You're also right that allowing the folks responsible for all that opportunity to get rich is part of what attracts dynamic companies.

But that's not the whole story. What we really want is to create an environment that is well-suited for dynamic people and firms to thrive. Yes, part of that is allowing talented people to reap the rewards of their genius-- relatively low taxes, low regulatory barriers to innovation, and the like. But part of it is also providing the infrastructure and resources for such firms to thrive. This means education (dynamic companies usually require high quality employees), infrastructure (companies can't thrive without good roads, airports, internet capability), environment (high quality employees typically like to live somewhere pleasant, with clean air and water and nice neighborhoods) and the like.

Mongolia might have zero taxes for all I know, but you can't start a software company in a fucking Yurt. (Yes I know that Ulaanbataar has a lot of money floating around in it right now-- it's all expat money for resource exploitation. Not the same thing.)

Why do you think that the center of the dynamic and productive part of the American economy is in Silicon Valley? Because of California's notoriously low taxes and lax regulation?

Yes, if your economic plan is to hire a bunch of people to build useless highways to nowhere until the funding runs out, that's a bad plan. But well targeted public investment is a necessary part of building a dynamic economy and fostering the conditions in which capitalism can thrive.

[kyoukan]

What on earth do you use as a definition of socialism?

The same definition as those loudmouthed tards on Foxnews use, when they call Warren Buffet a socialist. lol...

Seriously, I'm not even sure why I bother trying to argue with a fucking clown like you Kilmoll. It is worse than getting into it with my 3 year old.