Obama Said to Seek $300 Billion Jobs Package

Obama Said to Seek $300 Billion Jobs Package

www.bloomberg.com

President Barack Obama plans to propose sparking job growth by injecting more than $300 billion into the economy next year, mostly through tax cuts, infrastructure spending and direct aid to state and local governments.

Obama will call on Congress to offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years. This would be part of a long-term deficit reduction package, including spending and entitlement cuts as well as revenue increases, that he will present next...

(visit the link for the full news article)

The tax cuts are for those under $200,000 a year. Of course, they are financed by... those making $200,000 a year or less once Congress taxes it all back.

The "aid" to governments would pay government contracted workers (the $1,000 toilet seat type) to rebuild our infrastructure with the lowest bid. He plans to reduce the payroll tax and institute a national program (read obligation) to train workers for private businesses at the expense of the taxpayer (namely the one who's out of work).

He will also announce cuts to the military pensions (promised and contracted) as well as Medicare / Medicaid (which would cut the benefits of those same people out of work :lol.

SSDD.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by sbctinfantry

Businesses hire people. Usually businesses have/make more than 200K / year. Why punish them to the point where they can't hire people?

Unless, you don't really want unemployment to go down and want to raise the dependence level on government. . . . . naaaah.

Crook!

Stop the overspending(stimulus) packages, just end the endless and purposeless wars bring the troops home and stop bailing out your lobbyists and high profile buddies.

leave the market alone and it will be just fine

Here's the thing about this "proposal"...

I work for State government. Just yesterday we received some internal emails, one of which was regarding job postings. They were looking for a number of bridge engineers. This is unusual.

What this means to me is that the package of spending to create jobs by fixing the infrastructure is already a reality. It has already been agreed upon. However, we still have to go through the political dog and pony show of proposal and angry disagreement in order to fire up the respective sheep and keep that false R/D distraction alive.

Originally posted by jtap66
What this means to me is that the package of spending to create jobs by fixing the infrastructure is already a reality. It has already been agreed upon. However, we still have to go through the political dog and pony show of proposal and angry disagreement in order to fire up the respective sheep and keep that false R/D distraction alive.

I'm sure if the work is contracted out before the bill is voted on, the outcome of the vote is irrelevant because the USG would have to pay up anyway at that point.

So we have another, smaller, Stimulus package coming? Because the first one proved to be SO successful? This is crazy people! We can not continue down this path! There are NO shovel ready jobs...we can not build an entire jobs market on fixing infrastructure and/or expanding government.

We have maxed out our credit cards several times over and can't make the minimum payments now! Extending even more credit is ridiculous!

Why would anyone in their right mind think that throwing even more money at this problem is going to fix it? We kissed the first stimulus money goodbye, and you can kiss this amount goodbye as well.

Keep in mind, the CBO has issued many analysis' of the prior stimulus, and the best reports stated that it only "delayed" the inevitable. Gee, Obama couldn't be trying to falsely prop us up again and hope it holds til election time, now could he....?

This is sickening.

reply to post by jtap66


Actually, I interpret that differently.

By announcing job openings, the White House can show intent. In other words, "see how many jobs could be filled if this passed". It doesn't mean the actual job, complete with an actual paycheck, will ever materialize. It wouldn't be the first time jobs were offered only to be retracted later.

Remember all of the guaranteed shovel-ready jobs? The ones where Obama said that the workers and states were just sitting by waiting for the money to be approved so they can start working? Guess what? They never existed, never were completed.

reply to post by lpowell0627


Haven't you heard? Pelosi says we can no longer use the term Stimulus. It's now a job bill.

And the only shovel ready jobs that are out there are for those who dig graves nowadays.

I thought I should inject some common sense
09/06/2011


Just leave the market alone Obama
You've done enough damage as it is

Originally posted by sbctinfantry


The tax cuts are for those under $200,000 a year. Of course, they are financed by... those making $200,000 a year or less once Congress taxes it all back.

I think you read that wrong. Actually this article and all the variations of it in the press are all confusing. The article says that the tax cuts will be in the form of payroll tax cuts for employees and employers (companies). The tax cuts for those under $200k comes from the part of the article talking about what Mitt Romney is proposing.

So...

1.) $300 BILLION stimulus taking the form of tax cuts to employers, increasing government spending on infrastructure and direct aid to state and local governments.
2.) To be funded.... later.

"offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years. This would be part of a long-term [AS IN NEVER HAPPEN] deficit reduction package, including spending and entitlement cuts [SPECIFICS PLEASE] as well as revenue [TAXES] increases, that he will present next week to the congressional panel charged with finding ways to reduce the nation’s debt."

So, same ole story... spend it now, pay for it later... this is EXACTLY the SAME TYPE of stimulus that the first one was and the first one didn't work either. Are we expecting to do exactly the same thing and get different results??? This is IDIOCY!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

Businesses hire people. Usually businesses have/make more than 200K / year. Why punish them to the point where they can't hire people?

Unless, you don't really want unemployment to go down and want to raise the dependence level on government. . . . . naaaah.

nothing washington does is going to have much effect.

the last place i worked at had 60 production workers, 70 in the office, a dozen in shipping.
they did everything in their power to eliminate production workers, replace trained employees with temporary workers, cut benefits.
the corporate ceo was making a million a year plus much benefits.
the plant ceo had not been seen ever on the floor of the production facility in two years.
i have excellent hearing and overheard conversations between vice presidents and office secretaries, from my desk.
the corporate ceo never knew what any of the numbers on any paperwork they put in front of him meant.

i had the impression that their salaries came as much or more from the investors than our sales.

at another local facility, an executive secretary told me she had worked for her vice president for two years and had no idea what he did for the company if anything.
she said she knows what she does, schedule his golf games, buy presents for his wife, etc.

and i heard the same stories from many working at other companies.
bring on the illegal workers, management loves them, perfect modern employees.

the way corporate culture is nowdays, i doubt anything they do in washington is going to make much of a difference as far as hiring.

reply to post by sbctinfantry


Exactly. I think it has already been agreed upon. But first Obama has to give a passionate speech to fire upthe left. Then John Boehner has to disagree and pout to fire up the right. Then when they have the two sides arguing, they do it anyway. All this stuff is scripted. There's no longer a difference between the two parties, if indeed there ever was.

Simply amazing, we have a $300 Billion package being delivered by our Czar, and i say that as the President has not just individual powers in foreign affairs, but direct unfettered powers now in states? And this happened with no Congressional approval?



Its pretty obvious this countries legislative, and judiscial branches has been broken down to nothing.

What strikes me as odd, is why the pheasants are even allowed to vote for a president now, if Obama wanted to he could just declare martial law, and this dog and pony show of the American Democracy would be over

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Simply amazing, we have a $300 Billion package being delivered by our Czar, and i say that as the President has not just individual powers in foreign affairs, but direct unfettered powers now in states? And this happened with no Congressional approval?



Its pretty obvious this countries legislative, and judiscial branches has been broken down to nothing.

What strikes me as odd, is why the pheasants are even allowed to vote for a president now, if Obama wanted to he could just declare martial law, and this dog and pony show of the American Democracy would be over

in this election, ron paul is the only one talking about real problems.

romney said, no touch the defense budget.
perry is the status quo at it's worst.

and obama is only worried about saving the financial sector.

if you are a citizen, a human, washington no longer recognizes your existance.
finding someone who represents you on the ballot, good luck.

Good move.

Get people back to work, NOW!

$300 Billion or $300 Trillion, the amount isn't going to matter. What does matter is incentives and the bottom line. Simple matter to force American companies to hire American workers...remove the tax incentives from companies that have more than 40% of their production labor outside the US. And by production labor, not cost of labor...the physical bodies to get the job done.

Now of course the markets would reel, since this would effect major Blue Chip companies like Ford, GM, etc. But why make the American taxpayers subsidize those tax cuts when they have problems finding quality paying jobs in the first place.

I mean we could just as easily give the full $300 billion to McDonald's on the condition that they use it all on building new restaurants (which would require workers to staff) and there would be a ton of jobs created. And at $7.25 hour or so, all those jobs wouldn't come close to covering tax revenues needed to fund all the programs in place today. But everything would look good on paper wouldn't it? After they could claim something like 800,000 jobs created over a 6 month period.

Bottom line is that long term, difficult problems can not continue to be ignored. And the NAFTA treaty is one of those problems. All import duties and tariffs removed and there were not enough jobs to be spread among the working populations of Canada, US and Mexico. And to top it off, for it to work right the US would still have to purchase almost all the final goods. The question not asked was "who is going to buy anything if they are all unemployed?"

And for the failure to ask nor address that simple question, I can feel justified in calling them idiots. Next up on that line of logic would be to place the barrel of a loaded gun against their foot, pulling the trigger and wondering why they have a bullet sized hole in their foot....idiots.

The only job that Obama is trying to save or create is his own. All this is going to do is to come back to the Democrats as campaign contributions after it is laundered through the Unions.

$300B is what we spend every year on free health care for illegals and free school for their kids!! And obama just announced he's not gonna deport any of them and wants to give them work permits. Jobs for illegals, that's what he fights for.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Crook!

Stop the overspending(stimulus) packages, just end the endless and purposeless wars bring the troops home

Yes, dumping the half million or so US troops directly involved/training for/or otherwise connected with these wars off the military payroll and reintroducing them back into the private jobs market stateside will certainly help fix the unemployment problem.

This is one of the more common comments I see on the boards in regards to the US jobless situation. I fail to see how our foreign wars are connected to it, aside from actually keeping the total unemployment numbers lower than they would be if these military personel were included in the rolls of those searching for work. Furthermore, all the military contractors and suppliers would almost immediately enact layoffs, adding who knows how many millions more to the unemployed rosters. (Think about it on the microeconomic level for a moment. You have a military base that trains 25,000 troops per year for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. A lot of those troops station their families on or near those same bases. Now, suddenly, there isn't a need for that deployment training. Every local restaurant, store, rental property, activity center, theater, gym, and utility company has just experienced a massive hit to their patronage and incomes. Workers will have to be let go, setting up a viscious spiral.)

Massive recessions with double digit unemployment are NOT the right time to scale back military activity. You do that when you've got under 5% unemployment and a healthy economy. History is on the side of this. EVERY military conflict the USA has been involved in was followed up by a recession upon end of conflict and return of troops. Slap an additional recession onto the current recession and watch how fast we sink into a full blown depression. (and I mean a real DEPRESSION... not this fart in a jar "depression' some folks are trying to paint the deep recession we are currently in as.)