Obama eyes repaid gov't bank loans for jobs help

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Obama eyes repaid gov't bank loans for jobs help

WASHINGTON – Under heavy pressure to get Americans back to work, President Barack Obama on Monday suggested using a suddenly available pot of money left over from the government's bank bailout to help create more jobs.

Obama, who will address the subject in a speech on Tuesday, has been struggling to trim the nation's painfully high unemployment rate, now at 10 percent, just below a quarter-century high.

He said there may be "selective approaches" for tapping into the money that was to go for propping up seriously ailing financial institutions. The administration and its allies on Capitol Hill would have to get around a provision of the 2008 bailout legislation that requires money that is paid back by banks or left over to be used exclusively for reducing the federal deficit.

With a tough election year coming up, Obama and congressional Democrats want badly to do something about jobs. Turning a highly unpopular financial rescue program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), into a potentially popular one with new jobs attached has strong political appeal — although Republican critics have depicted such an approach as a backdoor way of putting a second economic stimulus package into force.

...

New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said Monday that the law explicitly blocks using the TARP for infrastructure or other nonfinancial industry projects.

"Everybody agreed that this money — as it came back in — was going to go back to reducing the deficit and the debt," said Gregg, who was one of the chief negotiators in writing the law. Gregg said that Democrats are eying "this money as some sort of a kitty, a slush fund to be used by the appropriators around here for the purposes of whatever the next stimulus exercise is going to be."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_jobs

unbelievable....what is the adage that is usually right, give the government power or money and they never relinquish it....the law explicitely forbids this, yet obama and the dems are ignoring the law....

so much for getting tarp back....spend, spend, spend
 
The stimulus needed to be about 400 billion bigger. A 300 billion "jobs" bill (IE stimulus II) would ensure a good recovery, and would put millions of Americans to work who's hands would just be idle otherwise.
 
The stimulus needed to be about 400 billion bigger. A 300 billion "jobs" bill (IE stimulus II) would ensure a good recovery, and would put millions of Americans to work who's hands would just be idle otherwise.


HEY; you could finally get a hand job!! :good4u:
 
It says he's attempting to get around it. Which means there's either a way around it or he's going to ask congress to make one.

which is total bullshit....the money was to go right back to the deficit....he shouldn't even be thinking about it, it shows he has no respect for the law

if he wants more money, go and ask for money, but he his too chicken to do that because he knows it likely will not fly....
 
The stimulus needed to be about 400 billion bigger. A 300 billion "jobs" bill (IE stimulus II) would ensure a good recovery, and would put millions of Americans to work who's hands would just be idle otherwise.

piker!.....if $400 billion is good, $4trillion would be better.....so, let's spend $6trill......then we could put three or four hundred million Americans to work......shucks, we could save a billion jobs
 
piker!.....if $400 billion is good, $4trillion would be better.....so, let's spend $6trill......then we could put three or four hundred million Americans to work......shucks, we could save a billion jobs

$400 billion more is what is necessary. You don't need more than that. It should have been in the original bill.
 
Yurt is right he is going to have to ask for it, His bullshit comments are meant to grease the runway. Notice to democrats, fuck with Obama on this one and he shuts off your states gravey train.
 
$400 billion more is what is necessary. You don't need more than that. It should have been in the original bill.

so basically we can't complain that the recovery didn't work because we didn't spend enough, but this time, if we let you spend another $400bill you can guarantee recovery?........
 
Yurt is right he is going to have to ask for it, His bullshit comments are meant to grease the runway. Notice to democrats, fuck with Obama on this one and he shuts off your states gravey train.


I could come up with a plausible argument that spending this money on job creation will indeed result in deficit reduction. It's a fairly straight line. More jobs means more taxpayers (and fewer collecting unemployment benefits). More taxpayers means more revenues. More revenues means less deficit. QED.
 
I could come up with a plausible argument that spending this money on job creation will indeed result in deficit reduction. It's a fairly straight line. More jobs means more taxpayers (and fewer collecting unemployment benefits). More taxpayers means more revenues. More revenues means less deficit. QED.

What if you spend $100,000 to create a $50,000 job? Then how does the math work?
 
If you're creating work to justify jobs then it's just a waste of time.

We need to do something in the chain of real value creation.

Reverse globalization.

A tariff on products made by overseas slave laborers would stimulate our domestic production quite nicely. Everyone would be back to work, and instead of incentivizing overseas totalitarian fascists, we'd be freeing our people from their fascist yoke through honest hardwork and real production, not government backed fantasy land.
 
I could come up with a plausible argument that spending this money on job creation will indeed result in deficit reduction. It's a fairly straight line. More jobs means more taxpayers (and fewer collecting unemployment benefits). More taxpayers means more revenues. More revenues means less deficit. QED.

And lets all laugh in your face together. $300,000 per termperary job created.

He'll get the money, and like I said previously his results will fall woefully short.
 
What if you spend $100,000 to create a $50,000 job? Then how does the math work?

You really don't understand?

When someone doesn't have a job, they are generally collecting unemployment benefits or some sort of assistance; either that, or they are stealing. So, you start by saving money there, one way or another.

Then, there is the fact that they might be a homeowner, and have to foreclose, which can have a whole range of negative effects on the economy.

Beyond that - when someone doesn't have a job, they generally stop spending money; at restaurants, stores, online, et al. So, their unemployment hurts other businesses. When they have a job, they spend money again, "lifting all boats", as they say.

But the most simple math is that they will start paying taxes again, and the revenue from that will offset their portion of the stimulus (and I would have to question the math of $100K to create a $50K job, but even with that math, it pretty much works out when you look at the big picture).
 
But the most simple math is that they will start paying taxes again, and the revenue from that will offset their portion of the stimulus (and I would have to question the math of $100K to create a $50K job, but even with that math, it pretty much works out when you look at the big picture).



They will pay more in taxes than the government will spend to create their job?
 
what kinds of jobs is he going to create? is this the new deal revisited? I still have yet to benefit from any of this administrations plans. I represent a large group of independent 'obamicans' if you will contingent who put Obama in office and we have yet to benefit from anything he has done. If all he does is take from my group I can guarantee you hes a 1 termer.
 
Back
Top