PDA

View Full Version : "New" Obama Jobs Plan



duane1969
09-07-2011, 10:38 AM
I use the term "New" loosely. Obama's job plan goes something like this (stop me if you have heard this before)...

The new Obama job plan involves spending $300 billion for "stimulus spending, job creation, infrastructure investment, assistance to those hit by the housing crisis and an extension of unemployment benefits."

Why does this sound familiar??...OH WAIT I REMEMBER!!! This is an exact replica of the failed job creation plan that he presented and implemented the last time...


In his speech Thursday, Obama’s prescriptions will be in the same mold as they were in 2008 — infrastructure spending; housing aid, including an expanded refinance program and new measures to assist the unemployed, administration officials say. They will also include tax cuts to give extra cash to workers and spur hiring, as well as aid for states and localities. The cost of the programs is likely to be at least $200 billion, and a reluctant Congress would have to approve many of the ideas.

So he admits that his "new" plan is just a rehashing of the old failed plan...somebody please get this spend-crazy idiot out of office!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-jobs-speech-will-renew-push-for-spending-to-boost-economy/2011/09/06/gIQAAgDx8J_story.html

Star_Cards
09-07-2011, 11:11 AM
I think investing in infrastructure is typically a good thing, but doing so is not really a way to boost the jobs numbers long term. At some point the money will have been spent and the infrastructure will be updated and the jobs will go away. I think the government should explore ways to have actual companies start hiring. The government shouldn't be the main force that lowers the unemployment numbers. American business needs to do that because they are the entities that actually earn a profit to afford the employment costs.

OnePimpTiger
09-07-2011, 11:30 AM
It's obvious, he's going for a quick hit bump to come along right before the polls open in 2012, he doesn't care what happens after that because his campaigning days will be over. Either that or he has even less understanding of economics than I thought...which I would think is impossible, but now I'm beginning to wonder.

And I don't know about where you guys are, but if there are any more road construction projects around here, there won't be any roads to drive on.

duane1969
09-07-2011, 12:32 PM
The simple matter is that government created jobs do not last. I was working one until a few weeks ago.

Giving an employer incentive to hire thru direct funding or tax breaks is fine but what happens when the government funding dries up or the tax break ends? ARRA is a great example. Thousands of jobs were created in 2009, they lasted 1-1.5 years and now they are ending resulting in rising unemployment numbers. The reality is that the current stagnant job numbers are a result of people who were hired temporarily with ARRA funds and now becoming unemployed again. These aren't newly unemployed people, they are just the ones that were unemployed when Obama got elected becoming unemployed again.

mrveggieman
09-07-2011, 12:41 PM
The simple matter is that government created jobs do not last. I was working one until a few weeks ago.

Giving an employer incentive to hire thru direct funding or tax breaks is fine but what happens when the government funding dries up or the tax break ends? ARRA is a great example. Thousands of jobs were created in 2009, they lasted 1-1.5 years and now they are ending resulting in rising unemployment numbers. The reality is that the current stagnant job numbers are a result of people who were hired temporarily with ARRA funds and now becoming unemployed again. These aren't newly unemployed people, they are just the ones that were unemployed when Obama got elected becoming unemployed again.

That's a good point but right now some job is better than no job at all.

duane1969
09-07-2011, 12:44 PM
That's a good point but right now some job is better than no job at all.

A long-term job is better than a 6-12 month job. Fixing unemployment for the next few months is not needed. We need long-term solutions not quick fixes. It is time to stop using bubble gum on the leaks and expecting tax payers to foot the bill.

If Obama's best idea is to repeat past failures then he can keep his ideas to himself.

duane1969
09-07-2011, 01:04 PM
The best part of all of this is that Nancy Pelosi is angry that the GOP is not giving a formal response to Obama's "new" plan. Apparently the Democratic plan was to attack the GOP response and distract Americans from noticing that this is the same plan as last time that failed. Now that the GOP won't play ball 'ole Pelosi is trying to use the lack of a response as a distraction.

The only GOP response speaks for itself...


Mike Steel said Obama's proposals on Thursday "will rise or fall on their own merits,"

In other words, it failed the first time, we are just going to watch it fail again and watch the Democrats self-destruct along with it.

Star_Cards
09-07-2011, 01:08 PM
That's a good point but right now some job is better than no job at all.

I agree with that and I don't have a problem with investing in infrastructure, but it seems like it's the main focus on creating jobs. I think it's a good investment but can't be the only or even main focus if they want to try to help turn thing around.

duane1969
09-07-2011, 01:23 PM
The simple reality is this. What they are calling "creating jobs" is creating nothing. A person is hired for the short-term. After they are gone so is the created job. Somebody is not hired to fill the position because no position exists. The net result is no new jobs.

pghin08
09-07-2011, 01:31 PM
I love how you've all eliminated TAX CUTS from the job plan description. I guess that means Republicans actually dislike Obama more than they like paying less tax. Read the second paragraph:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/07/obama.jobs.plan/index.html

duane1969
09-07-2011, 06:29 PM
I love how you've all eliminated TAX CUTS from the job plan description. I guess that means Republicans actually dislike Obama more than they like paying less tax. Read the second paragraph:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/07/obama.jobs.plan/index.html

Kind of like putting sugar on a rancid piece of meat before you eat it. Yeah, it taste sweet but it leaves a nasty taste in your mouth.

If Obama wants to go along with the tax cuts that the House Republicans want then he needs to do it, not use it as a bargaining tool to get more stimulus money to buy votes with temporary jobs.

INTIMADATOR2007
09-07-2011, 06:37 PM
I thought we already paid for infrastructure projects with the 1st stimulas bill , Atleast they put some dumb looking signs up here and there and a couple people were standing around holding up shovels but nothing got accomplised . Plus didn't we just have an argument about 2 months ago about the debt ceiling and how Broke this country is ? Wheres Obama's Stash hidden ?

theonedru
09-07-2011, 06:56 PM
I use the term "New" loosely. Obama's job plan goes something like this (stop me if you have heard this before)...

The new Obama job plan involves spending $300 billion for "stimulus spending, job creation, infrastructure investment, assistance to those hit by the housing crisis and an extension of unemployment benefits."

Why does this sound familiar??...OH WAIT I REMEMBER!!! This is an exact replica of the failed job creation plan that he presented and implemented the last time...



So he admits that his "new" plan is just a rehashing of the old failed plan...somebody please get this spend-crazy idiot out of office!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obamas-jobs-speech-will-renew-push-for-spending-to-boost-economy/2011/09/06/gIQAAgDx8J_story.html

job plan involves spending $300 billion

You can't spend money you don't have

duane1969
09-07-2011, 07:08 PM
job plan involves spending $300 billion

You can't spend money you don't have

My bank keeps telling me the same thing. No matter how many times I say "But the government does it!" they still refuse to let me spend money that is not in my account.

I even tried embracing my inner Socialist and suggested that I spend money that is in other people's accounts, but the bank refused to go along with that too. Go figure :confused0024:

duwal
09-07-2011, 08:06 PM
My bank keeps telling me the same thing. No matter how many times I say "But the government does it!" they still refuse to let me spend money that is not in my account.

I even tried embracing my inner Socialist and suggested that I spend money that is in other people's accounts, but the bank refused to go along with that too. Go figure :confused0024:


time to switch banks than

sanfran22
09-07-2011, 08:09 PM
time to switch banks than
No doubt, think we can all get accounts at the Fed?:sign0020:

INTIMADATOR2007
09-07-2011, 08:30 PM
My bank keeps telling me the same thing. No matter how many times I say "But the government does it!" they still refuse to let me spend money that is not in my account.

I even tried embracing my inner Socialist and suggested that I spend money that is in other people's accounts, but the bank refused to go along with that too. Go figure :confused0024:

That's funny right there !

habsheaven
09-07-2011, 08:44 PM
I see lots of complaining about Obama's plan but no one is offering an alternate solution. Who's got the long-term solution and exactly how does it work?

duane1969
09-07-2011, 08:47 PM
That's funny right there !

Thank you! I have upcoming shows at 9 and 11.

duane1969
09-07-2011, 08:56 PM
I see lots of complaining about Obama's plan but no one is offering an alternate solution. Who's got the long-term solution and exactly how does it work?

How is this?

1. Govt. gives tax deduction equal to 10% of profit margin to all goods producing companies
2. Companies who accept the deduction are required to use the 10% deduction to lower the cost of their products in the American market
3. Consumers buy the less expensive products resulting in more money left in their pockets
4. Consumers spend extra money buying more goods
5. More goods being purchased equals higher demand
6. Supply must increase to meet the demand, so more workers are hired

BAM!!!! In 6 steps I did what Obama & Co. could not do with 2 years and $2 trillion dollars. I now officially give Obama permission to use my common sense plan.

As the economy turns around the deduction can be reduced by 1% per year to minimize the negative impact on the market.

habsheaven
09-07-2011, 10:25 PM
How is this?

1. Govt. gives tax deduction equal to 10% of profit margin to all goods producing companies
2. Companies who accept the deduction are required to use the 10% deduction to lower the cost of their products in the American market
3. Consumers buy the less expensive products resulting in more money left in their pockets
4. Consumers spend extra money buying more goods
5. More goods being purchased equals higher demand
6. Supply must increase to meet the demand, so more workers are hired

BAM!!!! In 6 steps I did what Obama & Co. could not do with 2 years and $2 trillion dollars. I now officially give Obama permission to use my common sense plan.

As the economy turns around the deduction can be reduced by 1% per year to minimize the negative impact on the market.

Let me make sure I understand this. So if ACME manufacturing has an 8% profit margin before tax. The government is going to grant the company a .8% tax deduction. This .8% tax deduction has to be countered with a .8% deduction in the price of their product being sold in America. So that $100 item you buy is now only $99.20

First, that's going to take awhile to get to $2 trillion. Second, I believe you may be violating NAFTA and any other trade agreements that you presently have. Would you like to try again?

duane1969
09-07-2011, 11:20 PM
Let me make sure I understand this. So if ACME manufacturing has an 8% profit margin before tax. The government is going to grant the company a .8% tax deduction. This .8% tax deduction has to be countered with a .8% deduction in the price of their product being sold in America. So that $100 item you buy is now only $99.20

First, that's going to take awhile to get to $2 trillion. Second, I believe you may be violating NAFTA and any other trade agreements that you presently have. Would you like to try again?

Your math is defective. 10% reinvestment of profit at the manufacturing level does not equate to the final retail price of a single item. A shirt that sells for $25 will only costs a few dollars to make and be sold to the retailer for $10-$15. 10% of $8-$13 multiplied by hundreds of thousands of shirts adds up to alot of reinvested funds.

Yes, a single shirt may only cost .25 cents less, but the detergent, the washing machine, the hangers and the the softner sheets will cost less too. Add up a savings of .10 or .20 cents on every item that a family household buys and pretty soon you have dollars instead of change (pun intended).

How is giving a tax break a violation of NAFTA?

I suppose that you support the "spend until the wheels fall off policy" that is currently being utilized? News flash, jobs created by money that does not exist will soon not exist either.

Jobs are created by supply and demand, not spend crazy politicians.

theonedru
09-07-2011, 11:32 PM
Your math is defective. 10% reinvestment of profit at the manufacturing level does not equate to the final retail price of a single item. A shirt that sells for $25 will only costs a few dollars to make and be sold to the retailer for $10-$15. 10% of $8-$13 multiplied by hundreds of thousands of shirts adds up to alot of reinvested funds.

Yes, a single shirt may only cost .25 cents less, but the detergent, the washing machine, the hangers and the the softner sheets will cost less too. Add up a savings of .10 or .20 cents on every item that a family household buys and pretty soon you have dollars instead of change (pun intended).

How is giving a tax break a violation of NAFTA?

I suppose that you support the "spend until the wheels fall off policy" that is currently being utilized? News flash, jobs created by money that does not exist will soon not exist either.

Jobs are created by supply and demand, not spend crazy politicians.

Jobs are created by supply and demand, not spend crazy politicians

According to some whacked out commercial 1 job is created for every 2 houses built.......... So build a junk load of houses and bye bye unemployment

habsheaven
09-08-2011, 09:03 AM
Your math is defective. 10% reinvestment of profit at the manufacturing level does not equate to the final retail price of a single item. A shirt that sells for $25 will only costs a few dollars to make and be sold to the retailer for $10-$15. 10% of $8-$13 multiplied by hundreds of thousands of shirts adds up to alot of reinvested funds.

Yes, a single shirt may only cost .25 cents less, but the detergent, the washing machine, the hangers and the the softner sheets will cost less too. Add up a savings of .10 or .20 cents on every item that a family household buys and pretty soon you have dollars instead of change (pun intended).

How is giving a tax break a violation of NAFTA?

I suppose that you support the "spend until the wheels fall off policy" that is currently being utilized? News flash, jobs created by money that does not exist will soon not exist either.

Jobs are created by supply and demand, not spend crazy politicians.

I am only using the numbers YOU provided. My math is not defective. You stated the profit margin of the company as a whole, not the profit margin on one item. Besides, where is the incentive for a company to accept this "tax deduction" if they have to pass off the savings to the consumer. Also, how many more government officials need to be added to the ever-growing size of government to monitor all this?

As for NAFTA violations, providing domestic manufacturing companies with another form of subsidy penalizes foreign companies trying to compete to sell goods to Americans under varying trade agreements.

Theodor Madison
09-08-2011, 09:24 AM
yada-yada-yada. Same ol, Same ol> How else do can you say it. System seems to get worse the more Mr. O as in zero, speaks. I feel it is Obamacare that is hindering job growth in this country. We do not really know the total cost, and is very vague. Hate to see Americans become dependents of other Americans.

duane1969
09-08-2011, 11:12 AM
I am only using the numbers YOU provided. My math is not defective. You stated the profit margin of the company as a whole, not the profit margin on one item. Besides, where is the incentive for a company to accept this "tax deduction" if they have to pass off the savings to the consumer. Also, how many more government officials need to be added to the ever-growing size of government to monitor all this?

I didn't provide any numbers. My point was that savings at the manufacturers level does not directly translate to an exact price change in the retail market.

The incentive for manufacturers is obvious. A chance to grow and expand. A smart businessman looks at the long-term bottom line and not just this year's bottom line. The opportunity to increase sales and increase manpower will be attractive enough to any company looking to establish a long-term plan.

As for adding government employees to manage this...isn't that creating jobs too? Who is monitoring all of the stimulus money that Obama is spending? How about they do it?


As for NAFTA violations, providing domestic manufacturing companies with another form of subsidy penalizes foreign companies trying to compete to sell goods to Americans under varying trade agreements.

Providing incentive for American companies to grow and expand is not a violation of NAFTA. If it was then Obama already broke that one and he is proposing a plan that does it again.

If it penalizes foreign companies then so be it. Our economy is bad enough without having to prop up the industries of other countries too. If Canadian and Mexican companies can't compete then their own governments need to help them out and not sit around crying about whether or not it is fair.

NAFTA does not require us to hamstring our own industries so that yours can flourish. And if it did then it would be just one more Democratic economic policy that is a failure.

pghin08
09-08-2011, 11:20 AM
yada-yada-yada. Same ol, Same ol> How else do can you say it. System seems to get worse the more Mr. O as in zero, speaks. I feel it is Obamacare that is hindering job growth in this country. We do not really know the total cost, and is very vague. Hate to see Americans become dependents of other Americans.

You do realize that most major provisions of "Obamacare" haven't been enacted yet, right? But yeah, I'm sure the fact that kids can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 is a real job killer. Nevermind the fact that a lot major corporations (despite their excellent balance sheets, and low tax rates) aren't hiring Americans. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

duane1969
09-08-2011, 11:24 AM
You do realize that most major provisions of "Obamacare" haven't been enacted yet, right? But yeah, I'm sure the fact that kids can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 is a real job killer. Nevermind the fact that a lot major corporations (despite their excellent balance sheets, and low tax rates) aren't hiring Americans. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Yeah I think I read somewhere that Obamacare doesn't even go into full effect until like 2018 or something like that. By then it will be repealed.

pghin08
09-08-2011, 11:30 AM
Yeah I think I read somewhere that Obamacare doesn't even go into full effect until like 2018 or something like that. By then it will be repealed.

Yup. Most of the major provisions come from 2014-2018. Towards the end of Obama's second term or during someone else's presidency. Classic politicking. I thought that was a pretty crappy move. If you want healthcare reform, then own it.

habsheaven
09-08-2011, 12:13 PM
I didn't provide any numbers. My point was that savings at the manufacturers level does not directly translate to an exact price change in the retail market.

You provided percentages. I must be reading #2 of your plan wrong then because it sounds like you are requiring companies to pass on the ENTIRE savings in the form of price reductions. That sounds like exact to me.


The incentive for manufacturers is obvious. A chance to grow and expand. A smart businessman looks at the long-term bottom line and not just this year's bottom line. The opportunity to increase sales and increase manpower will be attractive enough to any company looking to establish a long-term plan.

The incentive may be a valid point, but the plan still doesn't work.


As for adding government employees to manage this...isn't that creating jobs too? Who is monitoring all of the stimulus money that Obama is spending? How about they do it?

As for more government employees, I thought the RIGHT was against BIGGER government. Are you saying you support bigger government and more regulations?


Providing incentive for American companies to grow and expand is not a violation of NAFTA. If it was then Obama already broke that one and he is proposing a plan that does it again.

In many industries it is a violation. If Obama violates NAFTA it will be dealt with (not that the US will abide by any decisions made by the governing body that oversees such things).


If it penalizes foreign companies then so be it. Our economy is bad enough without having to prop up the industries of other countries too. If Canadian and Mexican companies can't compete then their own governments need to help them out and not sit around crying about whether or not it is fair.

NAFTA does not require us to hamstring our own industries so that yours can flourish. And if it did then it would be just one more Democratic economic policy that is a failure.

This is such an ignorant statement I do not know where to begin. Suffice to say, you know very little about how trade agreements work and how they benefit all the countries involved.

AUTaxMan
09-08-2011, 12:15 PM
You do realize that most major provisions of "Obamacare" haven't been enacted yet, right? But yeah, I'm sure the fact that kids can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 is a real job killer. Nevermind the fact that a lot major corporations (despite their excellent balance sheets, and low tax rates) aren't hiring Americans. That couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

The fear and uncertainty caused by Obamacare is the jobs killer.

Companies aren't hiring Americas because our minimum wage is too high.

Obama's "targeted tax cuts," which I assume is merely an extension of the payroll tax cuts, doesn't really do anything for jobs, since employers are still required to pay the 7.5% (or whatever it is) portion of the payroll tax.

habsheaven
09-08-2011, 12:19 PM
Yup. Most of the major provisions come from 2014-2018. Towards the end of Obama's second term or during someone else's presidency. Classic politicking. I thought that was a pretty crappy move. If you want healthcare reform, then own it.

I think Obama has "owned" it. From all accounts, the Dems pushed it through despite the objections of the whole country. I am fairly certain that the adoption of the major provisions over a drawn out period of time was necessary to prevent the "uncertainty" that those on the Right want to say is causing the current lack of job growth on.

pghin08
09-08-2011, 12:21 PM
The fear and uncertainty caused by Obamacare is the jobs killer.

Companies aren't hiring Americas because our minimum wage is too high.

Obama's "targeted tax cuts," which I assume is merely an extension of the payroll tax cuts, doesn't really do anything for jobs, since employers are still required to pay the 7.5% (or whatever it is) portion of the payroll tax.

Joke. If a minimum wage employee works 40 hours a week, every week of year, do you know how much they would make?

$15,080.

GROSS. That's not even after tax. Hell, I spend $1,660 a year on gas just driving to and from my job. Minimum wage is too high? You're out of touch.


Here's a great article on the stiumli:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/economy/stimulus_jobs_record/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

AUTaxMan
09-08-2011, 12:26 PM
Joke. If a minimum wage employee works 40 hours a week, every week of year, do you know how much they would make?

$15,080.

GROSS. That's not even after tax. Hell, I spend $1,660 a year on gas just driving to and from my job. Minimum wage is too high? You're out of touch.


Here's a great article on the stiumli:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/economy/stimulus_jobs_record/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

I didn't claim that the minimum wage was high enough for people to maintain a decent standard of living. I said that companies are not hiring American workers because the minimum wage is too high. There is a difference. Why would you pay someone $7.50 an hour when you can pay someone $4.00 an hour to do the same job?

Also, teen unemployment is at or nearing a record high because the minimum wage is too high. Unskilled teen labor is not worth $7.50 an hour. It might be worth $5.00 an hour, though. You are the one with your head in the sand. Lowering the minimum wage will create jobs, and earning $5.00 an hour is much better than earning $0 an hour.

pghin08
09-08-2011, 12:35 PM
I didn't claim that the minimum wage was high enough for people to maintain a decent standard of living. I said that companies are not hiring American workers because the minimum wage is too high. There is a difference. Why would you pay someone $7.50 an hour when you can pay someone $4.00 an hour to do the same job?

Also, teen unemployment is at or nearing a record high because the minimum wage is too high. Unskilled teen labor is not worth $7.50 an hour. It might be worth $5.00 an hour, though. You are the one with your head in the sand. Lowering the minimum wage will create jobs, and earning $5.00 an hour is much better than earning $0 an hour.

I find it very hard to believe that large companies aren't hiring American workers because the minimum wage is too high. It doesn't make any sense. As a company working to make a profit, you're not as concerned with those who make less, as they also cost you less. You don't maximize profits by getting rid (or not hiring) those who make very little to begin with, you worry about those who you deem to be "overpaid" first. Companies are finding out that they can get by with LESS minimum wage-like jobs, and THAT'S why they aren't hiring them. Not because they cost too much, but because they don't need as many of them to survive.

AUTaxMan
09-08-2011, 12:38 PM
I find it very hard to believe that large companies aren't hiring American workers because the minimum wage is too high. It doesn't make any sense. As a company working to make a profit, you're not as concerned with those who make less, as they also cost you less. You don't maximize profits by getting rid (or not hiring) those who make very little to begin with, you worry about those who you deem to be "overpaid" first. Companies are finding out that they can get by with LESS minimum wage-like jobs, and THAT'S why they aren't hiring them. Not because they cost too much, but because they don't need as many of them to survive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

duane1969
09-08-2011, 12:59 PM
..............

AUTaxMan
09-14-2011, 06:31 PM
No response to Uncle Milt?