extended unemployment benefits again to encourage people to continue not looking for a job
$300 billion payoff to the unions, err, I mean in infrastructure improvements
This is not much different than Stimulous 1. Its really a political ruse which will announce a program to spend money we don’t have and to do something that has already proven failure.
Then they’ll hammer the repubs for refusing to climb on board to another failed spending plan that we can’t afford.
Its not going to be about jobs its about re-election and America knows it.
I’m so tired of speeches from Obama. If his title was “grand speechmaster of the united states of america” he’d be doing a bang-up job. Unfortunately for us, he was not elected to give speeches. If Obama wants to get anything done with the economy, he’s going to have to play dirty. Stop with the finger pointing and the finger wagging, and get down in the mud Mr. President.
I will probably watch the speech anyway, but man is Obama a major dissapointment.
Except that cutting taxes for people who spend their paychecks actually makes a glimmer of sense. That money ends up circulating around the economy instead of in some rich bastard’s brokerage account.
But unemployment is a systemic problem. The jobs just aren’t there. Cutting people off will only make things worse, and as in 1., the money ends up circulating around the economy, doing some good.
Does the plan have anything specifically to do with unions? Do you have a cite? I’ll be surprised if only unions are allowed back to work. If that really is the case, unemployed people will be better off joining a union anyway, unless they prefer working for $8/hr with no benefits…
People say that the first stimulus didn’t work because it wasn’t big enough. A lot of experts are saying we really ought to be borrowing money to spend on getting people back to work, considering treasuries are now below 2%, and that boosting payrolls eventually leads to higher tax revenues which can pay back the borrowed money and then some. Employment now, debt later. It is kind of a ‘people first’ approach that actually adds up.
I won’t be surprised if this is turned into election hay, but overall I have to say I am used to more well thought-out arguments here on the 'dope. I don’t think you make your case.
Debt is meaningless in a recession. It’s a red herring issue that the right is using to further its own agenda. As any competent economist will tell you, you must spend to get out from under recession/depression… The first stimulus was hamstrung by Republicans and, while it helped, it wasn’t enough to completely undo eight years of Republican malfeasance. Obama brings up the same issues because those are the solutions that will work, if given half a chance. And he needs to revise the taxation system, although that will go nowhere. The OP’s snipe at unions is just bullshit from another right winger.
If we need spending, then put the money where it will do the most good: in the hands of the public. Cut a check to everyone who filed a tax return last year for 50% of the tax due calculated on that return. Don’t call it a prebate or treat it as anything other than a flat out refund of taxes.
Stuff thats broke, or is likely to break soon, has to be fixed. We have to fix today or tomorrow. Whats the case for fixing it today?
One, the materials are cheaper than they are going to be when (and if) the economy improves. The prices of steel, concrete etc. are bound to go up. So, it will be a lot more expensive to fix it later than sooner.
People need the work. Duh. The work needs to be done. Double duh. People are eager to loan us the money at rates that will not get better.
This program is far too modest and doesn’t nearly go far enough. The Obama team most likely figures they’ll be lucky to get this much. The only upside is that if the Forces of Darkness reject this plan, they will be casting themselves in the worst possible light.
But we must, must must! extend unemployment benefits, we must extend aid to the states, we must help our people. If they aren’t our people, who’s people are they?
So, his re-election strategy is to keep the unemployment numbers artificially high?
CMC fnord!
You do understand that people getting unemployment benefits are counted as unemployed as opposed to (IIUC) people who don’t get them not being counted at all?
(Which IIRC is how “they” lowered the unemployment rate during the Reagen years . . . they just stopped counting people that didn’t have jobs and only counted people collecting unemployment benefits.)
I don’t understand this sentiment at all. You know the president isn’t actually a king, right? If Congress simply refuses to do anything, what exactly do you expect the President to do? He can’t make laws. The Republicans have proven that they are perfectly happy to sit back and do nothing and blame whatever happens on him. And why shouldn’t they? It works. So you can’t compromise with them (because they don’t want a win in the President’s column) and you can’t bully them – what else can he do?
No, it won’t. If you hand money back to taxpayers, they bank it or use it to pay off debts. That’s what happened last time a stimulus check was mailed out ot taxpayers.
If you want to get the economy rolling, you need to get people to spend money. So you fund infrastructure maintenance/construction work. Companies make/deliver/build products. People have jobs along the way, and the money changes hands over and over again on up the line all the way to the people who are harvesting/mining/pumping raw materials.
There is widespread agreement among economists: infrastructure spending is what’s needed to get the economy moving again.
Their own and they are solely responsible for their lousy position in life and the economy. They deserve to suffer, for they are sinners who lay with their own kind, smoke marijuana, don’t hate immigrants, listen to NPR and vote Democrat.
Or so I hear from my mother, who makes Dick Cheney seem soft and fuzzy.
I am genuinely puzzled by this, the jobs figures out of USA rather clearly indicate lack of job creation, on what planet does this then indicate jobless are “not looking”? I am all in favour of unemployment regimes that encourage people to seek work, but I have never read an analysis (a real one, not some political wankery) of USA unemployment regimes that suggest they are an issue.
I have to think this is another thing generated by a mestatisation of the American right into a kind of mirror of the communist party (by which I mean that irrational attachment to ridiculous ideological reading and stereotype trumps pragmatic governance).
Again, bizarre. What on earth is the problem with infrastructure. Everything I read (and based on my visits to the USA, validated by personal observation) is that USA infrastructure is in a sad and sorry shape as compared with other OECD countries. How is good economic infrastructure a payoff to trade unions? Given decline in USA competitiveness, I would think that investment in infrastructure would be a priority.
Again flabbergasted.
?? Your Central Bank governor, a Republican has called for more stimulus. Of course he’s a properly educated economist, not an ideologue so…
Mate you can borrow long at negative real interest rates, USA can afford it if it wants to. Good bloody Christ.
If he stresses work on the infrastructure, I will be happy. I doubt anyone is unable to see how bad it is and it is getting worse. But he will not get a major project past the Repubs. So he should go big and announce an enormous program. Then let them turn it down.
The unemployed are desperate. Stretching out unemployment will help demand and show mercy.
But I do agree, USA infrastructure really is in shabby shape and rehabilitation would be money well spent, particularly as you can borrow long at negative real rates. Improvement of transport infrastructure, etc. to boost economic competitiveness would be a real boon I would say. Your rail lines, for example, are in astonishingly horrid shape for an OECD nation. I’ve ridden emerging market lines in far better condition. Never mind high speed rail, rehab your freight lines, rehab your basic commuter rail, modernise signalling for improved efficiencies, etc.