So what do we think of Obama's plan?

[tazber]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 1:59pm

While I am a social liberal (duh!) I tend to lean more conservative in my general views on fiscal matters.

I thought the first stimulus had its heart in the right place but the utter lack of oversight resulted in it being a bust (I know, this is debatable but for the sake of argument I think we can agree that for the money spent the impact on the economy was minimal).

But last night I think Obama presented a great plan. Monetary policy has been completely ineffective, and while not a fan of democratic fiscal policy in general, I think there are some really excellent ideas to spur job growth.

I'm still sorting through all the specifics, but this strikes me as the best single program/bill that Obama has delivered yet.

Anyone have any thoughts it?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 2:09pm

How can you tell? Last night was just rhetoric. Until he actually puts something on paper where people can actually analyze it, it's just another campaign speech.

And this Solyndra looks like it could be Obama's Watergate. So this jobs plan may never get any attention.

[madbrian]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 2:14pm

There seems to be much to like and dislike for both parties. It's about as centrist and bipartisan as a jobs bill could be, combining both Dem and GOP initiatives. Personally, it included an idea I've been ranting about at our dinner table: a tax incentive to hire folks who've been unemployed for awhile. There have been countless stories in the media claiming that companies are much more inclined to hire someone who has a job, rather than someone who is unemployed. This new incentive should make it much more attractive for companies to get folks off the unemployment rolls.

To be fair, the response from GOP Congressional leadership has been fairly positive. It will be interesting to see if they follow through with action. They've been hellbent on denying him anything for three years nbw, but 2012 is also re-election for the entire House as well as a portion of the Senate, so they'll need to deliver something.

[tazber]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 2:17pm

What are you talking about? The specifics are all over the papers and the web. Did you even bother to look?

What I like most it that it deals with both schools of economic theory. Aggregate expenditure and aggrergate income are being equally addresed.

Anyway, here is a rundown of a few key points:
Link

[tazber]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 2:23pm

Brian, there was a tax hire credit offered to businesses who hired workers that had been unemployed for over 60 days in 2010.

It was way too little and completely unpublicized. I can tell you from experience with my clients that most of them didn't even knew how to get it. And the few who did saw such a minor credit that it was not worth the cost to hire.

And companies have simply learned to do more with less. And the employees who are picking up the slack for all the downsizing are to scared to complain.

I think the tax break in this plan is a major step forward in terms on hiring incentives.

Updated On: 9/10/11 at 02:23 PM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 3:48pm

I would love a tax incentive to those companies that decide to keep jobs in the US as opposed to overseas.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 5:37pm

When the Senate sends me a monthly check in the amount of $500 for my COBRA insurance, I'll consider supporting a fiscal plan. Otherwise, bitterness ensues and all requests for campaign contributions will go into the Spam folder.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/9/11 at 5:39pm

A tax DIS-incentive that actually penalized any company that chose to outsource things like call-center jobs overseas might be very popular, with Democrats, unionists and tea-party types alike.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 9/10/11 at 5:01pm

I hope it works but the last one was twice as much money and was a dismal failure. It will take much more than this to get this economy moving. The smaller tax for indiviuals sounds great but it only adds to the deficit and further weakens an already weak social security. I would get more but honestly let the government keep it at this point.

This just looks like a campaign stunt. To stimulate this economy you need 10 times the money specifically targeted. Business leaders are already saying it will not work.Time will tell.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 9/10/11 at 6:49pm

"Business leaders"? Which business leaders?

[trentsketch]

Posted: 9/11/11 at 12:51am

Actually, if you look at the fiscal data related to the stimulus, it was a success. The problem was that it didn't last long enough to completely pull us out of an economic tailspin. This blog does a good job explaining it simply with graphs and analysis anyone could understand: http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/the-recovery-act-worked-in-a-few-easy-charts/

[Gothampc]

Posted: 9/11/11 at 8:50am

trentsketch, the unemployed don't think it was a success.
Link

[tazber]

Posted: 9/11/11 at 10:51am

Whether or not the first stimulus was a success does not have a difinitive answer. There are hundreds of metrics that support the case either way.

I think that there are more fundamental long run issues that should be recognized. Monetary and fiscal policies are simply not going to correct the ship.

Businesses have the money to hire, what they don't have is confidence that hiring right now won't be a liability. If Obamacare goes into effect as it is in 2014 many businesses would be unable to afford it. (This is not necessarily my opinion on Obamacare, I'm just stating what you can find in the WSJ on any given day).

And at some point we as a country are going to have to recognize that we are shifting from a manufacturing economy to a service oriented economy. It is a massive paradigm shift.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 9/13/11 at 4:31pm

companies are sitting on piles of money but they are not going to spend it until they have at leat a modicum of faith that there is a direction. any direction. no one trusts the administration. at. all.

how many threads have there been around here about the "fierce advocate" who has turned tail? the man who was going to end the wars, close gitmo and single-handedly elevate humanity to nirvana did none and has presided over an assassination campaign that would have sunk any politician but him. how many times has he been defended by "well it's better than a republican would be."

now if many on the left don't trust him or his administration how can anyone even think that anyone on the right would? every penny of this plan is paid for. as soon as i get the commission to up their number from $1.5 to $1.95 trillion. i mean c'mon.

my favorite image of this administration and one that should be its lasting one is him receiving an award for transparency in government...behind closed doors and under a media blackout.

call me a pessimist, but i don't see anything changing economically until after next fall's election. at least then people will know which direction things are headed. either way.

[tazber]

Posted: 9/13/11 at 5:01pm

That doesn't make you a cynic papa, it makes you right.

They don't want incentives to hire and invest, they want security that investing now will not end up making their balance sheets bleed later.

[LaurenB]

Posted: 9/15/11 at 9:18am

"Actually, if you look at the fiscal data related to the stimulus, it was a success. The problem was that it didn't last long enough to completely pull us out of an economic tailspin."

I've tried to respond to this thread a number of times, and each time I would get so upset that I would never finish my post.

Regarding that blogger, I looked up his credentials and I am not impressed. His argument is pathetic, imo. It's like saying that our team would have won the ballgame if the game ended in the 8th inning.

As a small business owner who is responsible for strategic planning and meeting payroll, my business partners and I have been very upset over the past few years. Anyone who is in business and has any experience at all knows that you cannot throw money at a problem and expect to fix the problem. It is a classic, rookie mistake. Handing out money is only a short-term fix, but the long-term problems will still be there.

This is way beyond politics. I am sickened when I see how many businesses have failed and the number of homes that have gone into foreclosure. And yes, Obama inherited a royal mess.

But he and his advisors seem inept. Steve Wynn said a few months ago that this administration was like a wet blanket on the economy, or words to that effect. I could not agree more.

Obama should have concentrated on jobs during his first 2 years in office, when he had full Democratic control of Congress and could have gotten much done. Instead, he decided to expend his capital on healthcare reform. Yes, we need healthcare reform, but people need jobs first and foremost. If they had jobs, they could afford to purchase health insurance. IMO, Obama was more concerned with defining his legacy during his first 2 years in office, than attending to the country's needs. And this is something that I thought and stated to my colleagues since 2009. He was attacking the wrong problem.

I am hoping for the best, because we are in dire shape. Too many people that I know have lost their jobs, are underemployed, or are in serious trouble. When Obama announced a few weeks ago that he would be unveiling his economic plan after he returned from vacation on Martha's Vineyard, pundits were asking, "Why is he waiting? Why not tell us his plan now?"

The answer is because, imo, he didn't know what to say. He didn't have a plan. He was leading from behind. He was sticking his finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing. He was floating trial balloons.

Over-regulation is killing this economy. But Obama is beholden to special interest groups and unions, and he is not leading. He is dependent on their campaign contributions. I am a believer in unions, because I know that too many businesses would screw workers if given a chance. But there is a time to say enough is enough, the livelihood of ALL Americans is at stake.

And then you have our esteemed Justice Department raiding Gibson Guitar. Unbelievable. The news reports that the head of Gibson is a big Republican donor. What they usually leave out of their reports is that Gibson is also a non-union shop, unlike their competitors.

And then our politicians wonder why the economy is sluggish, why businesses aren't hiring, why people aren't investing. They don't trust this administration. And now the latest news about Solyndra isn't helping. A half billion dollars in stimulus money to a company that has now gone bankrupt, and the head was a big donor. It just stinks. It was bad enough hearing about corruption (like Enron) during earlier times. But our economy now is so fragile. Our tolerance for this kind of BS should be slim and none.

I don't mean for this to be political in any way. I am just very, very worried about the future.

[madbrian]

Posted: 9/15/11 at 9:41am

Putting aside the jobs plan for just a moment, I think we need some clarity about the Dem control of Congress when Obama took office. To be sure, the GOP made every effort to block anything that this administration tried to accomplish, no matter what concessions were made. They filibustered everything. Somehow, there's a pervasive opinion out there that the Dems had full control of the Senate for the 1st two years of his administration. Sorry to muddle the argument with facts, but that's just not the case. When Obama took office, the Dems held 58 seats. They could get NOTHING through Congress. In April of 2009, Specter changed parties, giving them their 59th vote. It wasn't until July of 2009 that the Minnesota election was settled in court and Franken was seated, giving them their 60th vote. Then in August, Ted Kennedy passed away, and for the month until his reppacement was seated, the Dems dropped back down to 59 votes. They regained their 60 vote supermajority in September when Kirk was seated, only to lose it again when Scott Brown took over Kennedy's seat in February of 2010.

Sorry for being so anal about this, but it makes me a little crazy when people overstate the window where Dems had a filibister-proof majority. And much of that window was consumed by Sotomayor's appointment to the SCOTUS.

I have no problem with folks being critical of Obama's policies based on their merits, but it's unfair to have the discussion without the proper context.

[LaurenB]

Posted: 9/15/11 at 10:05am

Good point.