Official Discussion Thread for President Obama's Jobs Speech

[krazen1211]

Just watching it now.

"How can we let our kids learn in places that are literally falling down?" *Republicans remain poker faced*

Gotta laugh.

US education spending is the highest it has ever been in our nation's history. One wonders how $880 billion a year purchases that kind of output.

[memphis]

Now Obama has to hope the GOP doesn't play ball and pass this.  Because this isn't a job maker, it might not even stave a recession off at all.  If that happens, Obama's ass is in a sling.

If this passes on a broad bipartisan basis I think it'll do a lot of good for the economy indirectly- renewed confidence from seeing strong Presidential leadership and a bipartisan Congressional effort to fix the country will greatly break the "mental recession." Also, especially cutting the payroll tax in half for everyone will definitely drive up consumer spending.

Because the early 2008 stimulus really helped the economy and lifted consumer confidence. 

2008 stimulus? What was that? When Bush bailed out the banks?

[Politico]

Is Ryan sleeping? Mainly good ideas, but how will we pay for it? Infrastructure and schools warms the cockles of my heart.

More borrowing now and higher taxes later (and higher inflation later if the Fed is somehow forced into a corner for political reasons (e.g., Nixon/Burns))

Again: Obama specified that the entire cost for this project was going to come out of the $1.5 trillion in new cuts he's calling for by Christmas. And that he's going to release a specific proposal for these cuts next week.

So we're supposedly going to cut $1.5 trillion over, what, ten years? So we'll get maybe, MAYBE, $150 billion in cuts next year coupled with $450 billion in new spending. That turns into $300 billion more in borrowing, and those borrowed funds need to be paid for or inflated away at some point in the future. Even with $150 billion in cuts each year over the next ten years, we're still going to run unsustainable deficits moving forward. One can only imagine how bankrupt the country would be by 2017 if Obama manages to win re-election and pass through $450-800 billion stimulus packages every 2-3 years.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Now Obama has to hope the GOP doesn't play ball and pass this.  Because this isn't a job maker, it might not even stave a recession off at all.  If that happens, Obama's ass is in a sling.

If this passes on a broad bipartisan basis I think it'll do a lot of good for the economy indirectly- renewed confidence from seeing strong Presidential leadership and a bipartisan Congressional effort to fix the country will greatly break the "mental recession." Also, especially cutting the payroll tax in half for everyone will definitely drive up consumer spending.

Because the early 2008 stimulus really helped the economy and lifted consumer confidence.  

2008 stimulus? What was that? When Bush bailed out the banks?

Wasn't there some really stupid half-hearted tax rebate thing the Republicans got passed in '08 they labeled as a 'stimulus'?

[Politico]

Now Obama has to hope the GOP doesn't play ball and pass this.  Because this isn't a job maker, it might not even stave a recession off at all.  If that happens, Obama's ass is in a sling.

If this passes on a broad bipartisan basis I think it'll do a lot of good for the economy indirectly- renewed confidence from seeing strong Presidential leadership and a bipartisan Congressional effort to fix the country will greatly break the "mental recession." Also, especially cutting the payroll tax in half for everyone will definitely drive up consumer spending.

Because the early 2008 stimulus really helped the economy and lifted consumer confidence.  

2008 stimulus? What was that? When Bush bailed out the banks?

Wasn't there some really stupid half-hearted tax rebate thing the Republicans got passed in '08 they labeled as a 'stimulus'?

That bill passed a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

[Mr.Phips]

Now Obama has to hope the GOP doesn't play ball and pass this.  Because this isn't a job maker, it might not even stave a recession off at all.  If that happens, Obama's ass is in a sling.

If this passes on a broad bipartisan basis I think it'll do a lot of good for the economy indirectly- renewed confidence from seeing strong Presidential leadership and a bipartisan Congressional effort to fix the country will greatly break the "mental recession." Also, especially cutting the payroll tax in half for everyone will definitely drive up consumer spending.

Because the early 2008 stimulus really helped the economy and lifted consumer confidence.  

2008 stimulus? What was that? When Bush bailed out the banks?

Wasn't there some really stupid half-hearted tax rebate thing the Republicans got passed in '08 they labeled as a 'stimulus'?

It was about $350 billion. 

[Politico]

Just watching it now.

"How can we let our kids learn in places that are literally falling down?" *Republicans remain poker faced*

Gotta laugh.

US education spending is the highest it has ever been in our nation's history. One wonders how $880 billion a year purchases that kind of output.

Put the Department of Education in charge of the Sahara desert, and there would be a sand shortage in ten years.

[J. J.]

"He acknowledged that Congress had little appetite for spending that isn’t eventually paid for and pledged to provide a plan on Sept. 19 that would pay for his jobs package. "


Is this a joke?

I'll give a chance and wait for it.  It certainly doesn't add to the supposed urgency argument, however.

[Penelope]

Yep, definitely the best speech he's given in a long time, both in delivery and tactic.

Actually, I thought it was his worst speeches.  The last five minutes were good, but is substance, more of the same.  A few things might get passed, but it is DOA.

Obama has lost the magic.

Of course you do.

The man could get us all on renewable energy, get unemployment back to 3%, and solve the Israeli/Palestine conflict and you'd find something to be disappointed in or ticked off at.
 
I thought the speech was pretty good. One of his best in a while, and this is really the type of thing he should have been doing on September 8th, 2009.

[Politico]

this is really the type of thing he should have been doing on September 8th, 2009.

I'll second that. Like Mitt Romney said, "Mr. President, you are 960 days late."

[Marokai Backbeat]

Now Obama has to hope the GOP doesn't play ball and pass this.  Because this isn't a job maker, it might not even stave a recession off at all.  If that happens, Obama's ass is in a sling.

If this passes on a broad bipartisan basis I think it'll do a lot of good for the economy indirectly- renewed confidence from seeing strong Presidential leadership and a bipartisan Congressional effort to fix the country will greatly break the "mental recession." Also, especially cutting the payroll tax in half for everyone will definitely drive up consumer spending.

Because the early 2008 stimulus really helped the economy and lifted consumer confidence.  

2008 stimulus? What was that? When Bush bailed out the banks?

Wasn't there some really stupid half-hearted tax rebate thing the Republicans got passed in '08 they labeled as a 'stimulus'?

That bill passed a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

Hence "Republicans got passed." I recall Democrats wanting additional boosts to the safety net and direct infrastructure spending, which was blocked. Not to burst your bubble, but when something passes a legislature controlled by one party or another it doesn't mean that is their proposal.

[Politico]

Now Obama has to hope the GOP doesn't play ball and pass this.  Because this isn't a job maker, it might not even stave a recession off at all.  If that happens, Obama's ass is in a sling.

If this passes on a broad bipartisan basis I think it'll do a lot of good for the economy indirectly- renewed confidence from seeing strong Presidential leadership and a bipartisan Congressional effort to fix the country will greatly break the "mental recession." Also, especially cutting the payroll tax in half for everyone will definitely drive up consumer spending.

Because the early 2008 stimulus really helped the economy and lifted consumer confidence.  

2008 stimulus? What was that? When Bush bailed out the banks?

Wasn't there some really stupid half-hearted tax rebate thing the Republicans got passed in '08 they labeled as a 'stimulus'?

That bill passed a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

Hence "Republicans got passed." I recall Democrats wanting additional boosts to the safety net and direct infrastructure spending, which was blocked. Not to burst your bubble, but when something passes a legislature controlled by one party or another it doesn't mean that is their proposal.

Democrats had more than enough seats in the Senate to filibuster any legislation they really did not want passed. That was not one such instance. In fact, their entire party leadership supported the 2008 stimulus package (Including then-Senator Obama). Sorry, but the past two stimulus packages were passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress, and the most recent package was also signed by a Democratic president (the same individual who voted for the first package as a Senator). And any safety net and direct infrastructure spending they wanted but did not get in 2008, they got in 2009. That was almost three years ago. You are going to have to face these facts...

[Marokai Backbeat]

Democrats go along with stuff that they don't like literally all the time. That's hardly news. If they can't get policy they like through then they settle for policy they only sort-of like or even barely like. Democrats like the idea of being a responsible governing party that does something rather than nothing. You certainly don't have to tell me that tax cuts (rebates in particular) are mostly useless as stimulus.

[Politico]

Democrats go along with stuff that they don't like literally all the time. That's hardly news. If they can't get policy they like through then they settle for policy they only sort-of like or even barely like. Democrats like the idea of being a responsible governing party that does something rather than nothing. You certainly don't have to tell me that tax cuts (rebates in particular) are mostly useless as stimulus.

Any safety net and direct infrastructure spending they wanted but did not get in 2008, they got in 2009. That was almost three years ago. And more of the same is not going to lead to different results this time around.

[J. J.]

Yep, definitely the best speech he's given in a long time, both in delivery and tactic.

Actually, I thought it was his worst speeches.  The last five minutes were good, but is substance, more of the same.  A few things might get passed, but it is DOA.

Obama has lost the magic.

Of course you do.

The man could get us all on renewable energy, get unemployment back to 3%, and solve the Israeli/Palestine conflict and you'd find something to be disappointed in or ticked off at.
 
I thought the speech was pretty good. One of his best in a while, and this is really the type of thing he should have been doing on September 8th, 2009.

You seem to forget that that I credited Obama with giving the best speech (in 2008) since the "I Have a Dream" speech.  His delivery was okay (B+), but he's off his game.

In organization, he should not have led with construction and teachers (especially since he didn't talk about hiring any new teachers).    Too much saying, "pass the act," instead of the details. (C-)

Delaying the cost report undercuts the premise that the act needs to be passed now. (D)

[Torie]

Pity I listened to it.

[Marston]

Cantor has said he's going to strip the bill down to individual proposals to consider them one-by-one. Hence, here is what I think will happen:

- Some form of this Veteran's Employment tax credit thing will get passed.
- The payroll tax cut will get extended and cut some more and extended to 'job creators'.
- Unemployment Insurance will get extended for a year (but not until the GOP extracts tangible domestic spending cuts to for FY2012 to make it cost-neutral).
- I doubt there will be any significant infrastructure or education spending bills passed.
- Most everything else will fall by the wayside.   

[Bacon King]

Is Ryan sleeping? Mainly good ideas, but how will we pay for it? Infrastructure and schools warms the cockles of my heart.

More borrowing now and higher taxes later (and higher inflation later if the Fed is somehow forced into a corner for political reasons (e.g., Nixon/Burns))

Again: Obama specified that the entire cost for this project was going to come out of the $1.5 trillion in new cuts he's calling for by Christmas. And that he's going to release a specific proposal for these cuts next week.

So we're supposedly going to cut $1.5 trillion over, what, ten years? So we'll get maybe, MAYBE, $150 billion in cuts next year coupled with $450 billion in new spending. That turns into $300 billion more in borrowing, and those borrowed funds need to be paid for or inflated away at some point in the future. Even with $150 billion in cuts each year over the next ten years, we're still going to run unsustainable deficits moving forward. One can only imagine how bankrupt the country would be by 2017 if Obama manages to win re-election and pass through $450-800 billion stimulus packages every 2-3 years.

A $450 bn economic package is revenue-neutral in three years with $150 bn in cuts per year (outside of the interest payments from the first year debt, of course). I'm not saying the plan is perfect, but delayed cuts to account for the spending are much better than not accounting for a spending increase at all (which was the case with basically everything 2001-2010). 

[Politico]

Is Ryan sleeping? Mainly good ideas, but how will we pay for it? Infrastructure and schools warms the cockles of my heart.

More borrowing now and higher taxes later (and higher inflation later if the Fed is somehow forced into a corner for political reasons (e.g., Nixon/Burns))

Again: Obama specified that the entire cost for this project was going to come out of the $1.5 trillion in new cuts he's calling for by Christmas. And that he's going to release a specific proposal for these cuts next week.

So we're supposedly going to cut $1.5 trillion over, what, ten years? So we'll get maybe, MAYBE, $150 billion in cuts next year coupled with $450 billion in new spending. That turns into $300 billion more in borrowing, and those borrowed funds need to be paid for or inflated away at some point in the future. Even with $150 billion in cuts each year over the next ten years, we're still going to run unsustainable deficits moving forward. One can only imagine how bankrupt the country would be by 2017 if Obama manages to win re-election and pass through $450-800 billion stimulus packages every 2-3 years.

A $450 bn economic package is revenue-neutral in three years with $150 bn in cuts per year (outside of the interest payments from the first year debt, of course). I'm not saying the plan is perfect, but delayed cuts to account for the spending are much better than not accounting for a spending increase at all (which was the case with basically everything 2001-2010).  

All of the talk of "revenue-neutrality" has gotten us where? Oh, to the point where our debt-to-GDP ratio is nearly 100%.

Look, if you cut $150 billion in spending next year and simultaneously add $450 billion in new spending for next year, you will have $300 billion in additional spending next year (this would be added to the current projected deficit). So now we're borrowing $300 billion more than previously. And let's not forget you have to pay the interest on the $300 billion you borrow, too. And even if you cut $150 billion each of the following two years, you are still running an unsustainable deficit given the current trajectory. This is madness!

And if we see Obama get re-elected, we're apparently going to see him come back begging for a repeat of this nonsense at least once more at some point in 2013-2015. I mean, why would we not see that? It did not work the first or second time, but here he is trying it for a third time. Why not try it for a fourth time if voters send him back to the White House despite 9% unemployment and a crisis of confidence?

To hell with that. I'll take my chances with Romney. At least he wants to get the deficit under control, and change things up with a different, better approach.

[J. J.]

Cantor has said he's going to strip the bill down to individual proposals to consider them one-by-one. Hence, here is what I think will happen:

- Some form of this Veteran's Employment tax credit thing will get passed.
- The payroll tax cut will get extended and cut some more and extended to 'job creators'.
- Unemployment Insurance will get extended for a year (but not until the GOP extracts tangible domestic spending cuts to for FY2012 to make it cost-neutral).
- I doubt there will be any significant infrastructure or education spending bills passed.
- Most everything else will fall by the wayside.   

I think  infrastructure or education are both DOA,  It goes back to his "shovel ready" remark.  I'm wondering if he didn't toss that in as a bone the GOP could reject while passing the rest.

BTW:  Anybody thing this actually will have an impact on unemployment?  The only thing might be regulation reform.  I'm also wondering if the "job creators" have to be corporations?

[Bacon King]

Politico:

Presumably, the $300 billion in debt would be paid off by the $150 billion from the second and third years- hence why I said that the only increase would be from the interest on that $300 billion.

Also, while we're building this thought exercise, remember that another $2.5 trillion in cuts over ten years will already be coming through the pipeline thanks to the debt ceiling deal- so divvying it up essentially equally just like the money we've already mentioned, that's really $350 billion in cuts per year. So, all else being equal, that's a one year debt increase of a $100 billion followed by nine years of $350 billion cuts per year.

I really doubt we'll see another Obama bill for economic growth, because if the economy is still this bad next year I don't see how Obama can get reelected.

I also personally doubt Romney would be good with the debt. Reagan, H.W. Bush, and W. Bush were all horrible with it; I think it's natural to assume that a Republican President would increase the debt- he'd cut taxes, but then he'd hesitate on cutting spending to match because he'd be worried about his reelection. This is especially true with a Democratic Congress: both Reagan and Dubya began escalating the debt worse when Democrats took over.

I'm more hopeful with a divided government in the other direction- Gingrich pressured Clinton to balance the budget in 1994, and it's looking like the Republicans are doing the same to Obama now. I voted for Obama in 2008 without voting for my Democratic Congressman. In 2010 I voted Republican. I plan on splitting my ticket again in 2012. I honestly think that Obama + GOP house is the best way to get our nation fiscally solvent. And there are a lot of ideas out there (some good, some horrible) to cut the deficit. I really like Connie Mack's penny plan, for one.

Apologies if this post didn't make much sense, but I'm typing this while procrastinating on an essay exam I'm typing tonight, and I really need to get back to it, so I'm submitting this post now and getting back to that, hoping that this post doesn't come off as too stream-of-consciousness.

[President von Cat]

I loved the speech and have confidence in the president for the first time since the bin Laden raid. He's back in the driver's seat and I trust he will successfully pressure Congress into passing most of this jobs plan. He should then relentlessly pursue more, and more and more.

This speech showed everyone exactly how different Barack Obama is from Jimmy Carter, who could have never given an address like that.

Republicans who underestimate this president do so at their own peril.

[J. J.]

I actually think it would have been more effective as a speech from the Oval Office.  The response, from both parties, did not seem enthusiastic.

[riceowl]

I didn't see him ever mention inheriting someone else's recession or mention Bush...which is always a big talking point on the pubbie message boards.  So, that's a plus.

[Paul Kemp]

This really should have been the speech that he should have been making for the past three years. What took so long?

In fact, I'd say it's the best speech he's given since '04.