Obama unveils 447-billion-dollar new job plan - American Jobs Act

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Sep 09, 2011 12:02 AM GMT
    Obama unveils 447-billion-dollar new job plan

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-09/09/c_131119478.htm

    Small Business Is Focus of Tax Cuts (News Corp owned article)

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904103404576559053861250380.html

    Factbox: Key elements of Obama's $447 billion jobs plan
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-obama-jobs-proposal-fb-idUSTRE7877TG20110908


    [quote]
    EMPLOYEE PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY

    Obama is proposing a $175 billion one-year extension and expansion of the employee payroll tax holiday that would halve the tax rate to 3.1 percent in 2012.

    EMPLOYER PAYROLL TAX HOLIDAY

    Obama is seeking $65 billion to encourage small businesses to hire more workers. This includes halving employer payroll taxes to 3.1 percent for the first $5 million of a company's wage bill in 2012, which the administration says will reach 98 percent of small businesses. He also wants a complete payroll tax holiday for increasing the size of the payroll by up to $50 million above the prior year, either by hiring new workers or raising the salaries of the existing labor force.

    HOUSING

    Obama wants to broaden homeowner access to mortgage refinancing and help the battered housing market by allowing households to take advantage of ultra-low borrowing costs that would help them put their finances on a sounder footing.

    Administration officials say he hopes to push forward with a plan in the next few weeks. To hammer out a proposal, the Treasury Department is talking with U.S. mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their regulator the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to figure out ways to broaden access for homeowners by removing barriers to refinancing.

    EXTENDING 100 PERCENT COMPANY EXPENSING INTO 2012

    At a cost of $5 billion, Obama wants to extend a 100 percent expensing tax break for companies, allowing them to immediately take a tax deduction for investment in new plant and equipment.

    $85 BLN IN AID FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

    -- $35 billion to keep teachers, firefighters and police officers in their jobs, of which $30 billion would go to schools and $5 billion to police and firefighters.

    -- $30 billion to modernize schools and community colleges.

    -- $15 billion to rehabilitate and refurbish vacant and foreclosed homes.

    -- $5 billion to help low-income youths and adult workers, supporting summer and year-round jobs for young people and support subsidized work for unemployed low-income workers.

    ROAD, RAIL AND AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING

    Obama seeks $50 billion to invest in highways, transit, rail and aviation, including upgrading U.S. airports and supporting Nextgen Air Traffic modernization.

    INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

    Obama wants $10 billion to capitalize an infrastructure bank to leverage private and public infrastructure investment "without earmarks or traditional influence," the White House says.

    EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, BRIDGE TO WORK

    -- $49 billion for a one-year extension of long-term unemployment benefits that would otherwise expire, which the White House says prevents 6 million jobless Americans from losing benefits. It includes reforms to the jobless aid system and a "bridge to work" program to help get unemployed people back to work.

    -- $8 billion for tax credits for long-term unemployed.
    [/quote]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 1:16 AM GMT
    The Bad: Payroll tax holiday is a monumentally bad and useless idea. On housing, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are still the problem and should have been dissolved in 2008. Corporations do not need more tax breaks -- another bad idea. The aid to state and local governments is lame: where is the money gonna come from? We're broke.

    The Okay: The tax credits for the unemployed is a fair idea, but the point is to get them working again not give them a temporary band-aid.

    The Good: The infrastructure spending is a good idea -- but again, where's the money? This is what the first "stimulus" should have looked like. There is no reason to spend more, just redirect the unspent money from the first stimulus to infrastructure spending.


    Honestly, what the nation needs -- but what will never happen -- is first and foremost the repeal of Obamenycare, which is a disaster. Congress should then pass a real health care reform bill with a Medicare buy-in to lower insurance costs and tort reform to lower doctors bills, not to mention lifting restrictions on American's ability to import cheaper international drugs and buy insurance across state lines (If you want REAL long-term health care reform then the President should use his bully pulpit, the HHS Department, and the Education Department to press for schools to start taking fitness, health, and nutrition education seriously for a change.) Social Security needs to be indexed to life expectancy. Obama should end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redirect that money to border security to keep low paying Mexican workers from crossing the border and undermining the American job market. Congress should renegotiate our trade agreements to protect American manufacturing jobs and slap a tariff on Chinese good to stop China's currency manipulation and the devaluation of our dollar. The dollar, by the way, should be tied to the gold standard. Obama should lift the moratorium on drilling in the gulf and ANWR -- that would create at least half a million jobs alone. The Bush tax cuts, which should have been allowed to expire in December, should be immediately repealed but only for income above $1 million instead of the standard marginal bracket of $250,000 in order to spare small businesses. The Glass-Steagall act should be reinstated by Congress or by executive order in order to reign in Wall Street. And the stimulus ought to be redirected to a nationwide infrastructure spending spree on high speed rail, in order to create jobs and increase interstate commerce.

    None of this will happen because Republican and Democrat partisans are incompetent, weak, wussy lackeys of corporate oligarchs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    TroyAthlete said The aid to state and local governments is lame: where is the money gonna come from? We're broke.

    http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield
    http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/08/315253/the-american-jobs-act/I do wish the President had spent a bit more time focusing on the slightly wonky subject of bond yield rates, but I’ll do it for him instead. The real yield on the 10-year bond is back to zero percent. At the five-year and seven-year horizons, the real yields are zero. That’s because the marketplace doesn’t want to fund current consumption and it doesn’t want to fund residential investment either. It wants to give the money to the government. It’s time to seize that opportunity.


    Who wants free money?
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1781724
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:15 AM GMT
    As for tort reform (something I have looked into, since it directly affects me), it's not the panacea that you think it is:


    http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
    According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:26 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAs for tort reform (something I have looked into, since it directly affects me), it's not the panacea that you think it is:


    http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/
    According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.


    Typical for the Times to look at a tree and miss the forest in order to discredit any view that does not mesh with its partisan hackery.

    This addresses only tort spending on the back end, in actual litigation.

    On the front end, doctors and health care providers have told us over and over again that they charge health care consumers more in order to cover the possible costs of being sued. This is not rocket science. Of course these costs would be passed onto consumers. Duh. Tort reform would change that, but too bad Obamacrats were too busy protecting the litigation attorney lobby to notice.

    I never said tort reform is a "panacea" and I don't believe that, either. The only health care panacea is maintaining one's own physical fitness, mental acuity, spiritual health, and social life, and especially monitoring nutrition carefully.

    I argued that tort reform should be part of a comprehensive (real) health care reform package including a voluntary, optional public health insurance plan in the form of a Medicaire buy-in and including lifting restrictions on buying drugs from international sources and shopping for health insurance across state lines; the Obama White House killed theses ideas when it caved to the corporate insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies (shocker).

    I am right about that, but instead we got a national version of Romneycare, which is a corporatist mess dreamed up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. The fringe right should be ashamed for pretending to be against this giveaway to Big Insurance and Big Pharma, and the Democratic Party ought to disband for falling for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:32 AM GMT
    I agree to a great extent with particularly TroyAthlete's largest Paragraph and entirely with his last sentence.

    Our Congressmen and Senators are bought and paid for by corporations who fund their staying in power and therefore they do not have the spine to do anything if its not benefiting their corporative financiers. And Obama is in the same boat or we wouldn't have ended up with a bloated health care bill which is a huge income increase for for large INS Companies.




    SB, yes once the Repubs/TBaggers successfully stop anything Obama can do to improve the economy so that he fails, then they'll come into power (if they win the presidency) and suggest infrastructure projects to help get money into the hands of the unemployed to get our economy moving and every republican will vote for it then. WATCH AND SEE !!!

    However, the republicans may have to wait until 2016, especially if they don't get off that far right crazy talk like Perry saying that Social Security is just a Ponzy Scheme and that's just one example, with plenty more crazy Idea's and talking points to draw from.

    Obama has put the Repubs in a situation that if they've got any sense, they'll do something major like what he's proposing for infrastructure jobs, if they don't, they'll continue to be seen as mainly obstructionists and they will be voted out of office over it. Repubs better not buy into Perry's Ponzi Scheme ideas either or they'll lose even more votes over that stance

    Many repubs will say that this won't work, they'll claim that infrastructure spending never works when we have plenty of examples of it being successfull, they'll say that the answer lay's entirely in cutting taxes and cutting regulation. That hasn't worked yet over the last ten years of Bush cuts and its not going to now, and everytime I ask WHERE ARE THE JOBS FROM BUSH TAX CUTS, I get no answers.

    Cutting taxes alone without doing something to get people working again with money in their pockets won't create demand for goods and services. And creating demand has to occur or we'll stay in economic limbo. Unless of course the wealthy and corps will out of the goodness of their hearts decide to spend some of the trillions they're sitting on, on our cities and rural areas where infrastructure work is needed. Shall we wait for that to happen or go ahead with Obama's Ideas of Government spending the money on infrastructure?



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:38 AM GMT
    I agree with the better part of your post, but you have some weird ideas about how charges are generated in medicine, specifically:

    TroyAthlete said
    On the front end, doctors and health care providers have told us over and over again that they charge health care consumers more in order to cover the possible costs of being sued. This is not rocket science. Of course these costs would be passed onto consumers. Duh. Tort reform would change that, but too bad Obamacrats were too busy protecting the litigation attorney lobby to notice.


    I charge the same for all my patients. What is paid to me is different depending on their insurance.

    You might be thinking of ordering more tests in order to "cover one's ass." Is that done because of fear of litigation? Sure. But to a lesser extent than you think. If you're really interested in the subject, read this:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1012821
    Specifically:
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1012821Our review yielded two main conclusions. First, evaluations of traditional tort reforms have remained heavily focused on metrics related to liability costs, with most care-related measures receiving relatively short shrift. Second, the evidence reveals that, with few exceptions, traditional tort reforms have not proved to provide many improvements in these liability metrics (Table 3).


    And the ACA has provided $50 million for states and health care systems to test new approaches to the resolution of medical-injury disputes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:44 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said If you're really interested in the subject, read this:



    Read it (quickly).

    Nothing in it 'refudiates' anything I wrote: whether tort reform comes through traditional means or alternative means, tort reform is still necessary to help lower health care costs for consumers. I remain correct on that point.

    I will try to read it more deeply when I have time, to see where the authors -- who are lawyers (hmmm) -- say that tort reform is a waste of time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:46 AM GMT
    And the gold standard is a recipe for disaster:

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:50 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAnd the gold standard is a recipe for disaster:

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_gold_standa.html


    I disagree. The dollar was doing quite well when it was tied to gold, until Nixon undid it. It has been downhill since. The proof, as always, is in the pudding.

    Do you have any ideas or suggestions for getting the country back on track?

    Or are you a one-person party of no?

    People with no ideas of their own are good at picking apart the ideas of those who actually have ideas line by line and citing the work of others.

    Can you think for yourself? What do you think should be done? Or is the status quo acceptable? Or will you reserve judgment until the the Times or the attorney lobby tells you what to think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 09, 2011 2:54 AM GMT
    @TroyAthlete:
    Anything that the government can spend right now is good, simply because the private sector doesn't want to do it, and is willingly flocking to the safe shores of Treasuries, regardless of AAA- downgrading. Bond yields are NEGATIVE. Free money, anyone?

    So I agree with a lot of your post (e.g. infrastructure spending). Anything but short-term austerity.

    Short term inflation needs to be higher.

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Oct 02, 2011 4:40 PM GMT
    Fighting for the American Jobs Act

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Oct 04, 2011 11:31 PM GMT

    Obama's jobs bill falls to pieces in Congress

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-expects-jobs-bill-vote-end-october-161946112.html

    Harry Reid: Senate will take up Obama jobs bill

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65026.html





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 04, 2011 11:36 PM GMT
    metta8 said




    You will NEVER get one of our esteemed republican members here to admit that this is 'Reagan'.. I'm positive either they will NOT post, or say it was "photoshopped". icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    metta8 saidFighting for the American Jobs Act


    Democrats also oppose it
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1849049
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2011 8:43 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    metta8 said




    You will NEVER get one of our esteemed republican members here to admit that this is 'Reagan'.. I'm positive either they will NOT post, or say it was "photoshopped". icon_wink.gif


    Based on his record as California governor, if Reagan ran today he would be run out of GOP primaries as too liberal on taxes, gays, immigration, and abortion. He'd have no chance a la John Huntsman.

    And that sums up your modern Republican party. Scary stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 05, 2011 2:04 PM GMT
    TroyAthlete said
    TropicalMark said
    metta8 said




    You will NEVER get one of our esteemed republican members here to admit that this is 'Reagan'.. I'm positive either they will NOT post, or say it was "photoshopped". icon_wink.gif


    Based on his record as California governor, if Reagan ran today he would be run out of GOP primaries as too liberal on taxes, gays, immigration, and abortion. He'd have no chance a la John Huntsman.

    And that sums up your modern Republican party. Scary stuff.
    QFT.. and yes that is sad.................
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Oct 12, 2011 7:08 PM GMT
    GOP Kills Job Package

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/12/we-cant-take-no-answer-0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    metta8 saidGOP Kills Job Package

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/12/we-cant-take-no-answer-0


    How predictably dishonest of you. It wasn't enough to demagogue the death of Steve Jobs to proclaim your ignorance of economics and the OWS protests, and now this. Seriously? Do you do math? Which party controls the Senate?