Obama Jobs Plan

[MadImmortalMan]

Got my mitts on the talking points:

The talking points: 

The American Jobs Act is:

-- based on bi-partisan ideas;

-- it is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share; and

-- it will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW -- just as soon as Congress acts.

-- Every day, people in this country are working hard to meet their responsibilities. The question now is whether Washington will meet theirs.

-- The time for obstruction and gridlock is over. Congress needs to put country ahead of politics.

-- The American people know that the economic crisis and the deep recession weren't created overnight and won't be solved overnight. The economic security of the American middle class has been under attack for decades.

-- That's why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic crisis.

-- The President is rebuilding the economy the American way -- based on balance, fairness and the same set of rules for everyone from Wall Street to Main Street where hard work and responsibility pay and gaming the system is penalized.

-- It's an American economy that's built to last and creates the jobs of the future, by forcing Washington to live within its means so we can invest in small business entrepreneurs, education, and making things the world buys, not outsourcing, loopholes and reckless financial deals that put middle class security at risk.

Not that Congress will do The Plan.

[Ideologue]

-- based on bi-partisan ideas;

I'm sure it'll be a raging success.

[Admiral Yi]

No mention of what the money would be spent on.

[Sheilbh]

No mention of what the money would be spent on.

Isn't he pushing for extension of payroll tax cuts?  That'd be good.  I'd add infrastructure.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't he pushing for extension of payroll tax cuts?  That'd be good.  I'd add infrastructure.

One thing that cheeses me off about infrastructure spending is the way in which the original stimulus bill was sold at least in part as a response to our crumbling infrastructure.  And turned out not to have much to do with repairing any crumbling infrastructure.

I've got a brilliant idea for stimulus spending: free one way bus tickets for unemployed people to North Dakota.

[Sheilbh]

One thing that cheeses me off about infrastructure spending is the way in which the original stimulus bill was sold at least in part as a response to our crumbling infrastructure.  And turned out not to have much to do with repairing any crumbling infrastructure.

They spent about 10% on infrastructure, which is hardly enough to make a big dent.  But I think the left were right that it was too small and too focused on tax cuts - which were probably necessary to win over the Republican votes - which was a shame.

[mongers]

I think a good start would be to repair more of Americas roads and interstates; as pump priming it could be relatively efficient.

[Admiral Yi]

They spent about 10% on infrastructure, which is hardly enough to make a big dent.  But I think the left were right that it was too small and too focused on tax cuts - which were probably necessary to win over the Republican votes - which was a shame.

Are you sure that any of that money was spent on repairing bridges on the verge of collapse and that sort of thing?  My impession was it was all greenfield stuff.

Don't know what you mean by winning over Republican votes; I don't think a single Republican ended up voting for stimulus I.

[Habsburg]

"-- it is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share"

This will go over like beer in Church with the Tea Baggers and many in the GOP.


INCOME REDISTIRBUTION!!!1!

[Sheilbh]

Don't know what you mean by winning over Republican votes; I don't think a single Republican ended up voting for stimulus I.

Specter and at least one of the Senators from Maine.

Are you sure that any of that money was spent on repairing bridges on the verge of collapse and that sort of thing?  My impession was it was all greenfield stuff.

Sorry, it was 5%.  I'm not including environment or things like that.  But $21 billion went to highways, for example, a billion to the airports, $250 mil to high speed rail.  The US Army Engineers got $300 mil to do something with the Mississippi and Tributaries - a lot of infrastructure spending seems to have gone through military agencies, weirdly.

[dps]

Are you sure that any of that money was spent on repairing bridges on the verge of collapse and that sort of thing?  My impession was it was all greenfield stuff.

Sorry, it was 5%.  I'm not including environment or things like that.  But $21 billion went to highways, for example, a billion to the airports, $250 mil to high speed rail.  The US Army Engineers got $300 mil to do something with the Mississippi and Tributaries - a lot of infrastructure spending seems to have gone through military agencies, weirdly.

But Yi was asking if any of that went to badly needed repairs.  The spending on high speed rail certainly didn't--it went mostly to studies and that sort of thing.

[MadImmortalMan]

Sorry, it was 5%.

I think if it had been 100% or even 50% the overall stimulus could have been way way smaller and maybe actually had an effect.

[Sheilbh]

But Yi was asking if any of that went to badly needed repairs.  The spending on high speed rail certainly didn't--it went mostly to studies and that sort of thing.

I don' t know.  We're talking small amounts of money in the context of the bill.  But of the money to highways, for example, only 8% went to entirely new projects from what I can see.  This is all accessible for Yi to look at - as I am - on government websites, he can add some definition to his impressions.

[Sheilbh]

I think if it had been 100% or even 50% the overall stimulus could have been way way smaller and maybe actually had an effect.

I think it would still need to have been larger.  US GDP shrunk by almost 7% (annualised) in the first quarter of 2009 and the 2008 decline has also been consistently revised downwards.  I think you needed a larger stimulus and had the debate taken place knowing how large a decline had taken place, I think you would've got one.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it would still need to have been larger.  US GDP shrunk by almost 7% (annualised) in the first quarter of 2009 and the 2008 decline has also been consistently revised downwards.  I think you needed a larger stimulus and had the debate taken place knowing how large a decline had taken place, I think you would've got one.

GDP shrank from a bubble inflated level.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to try and regain that level through Keynesian stimulus.