Obama Said to Seek $300 Billion Jobs Stimulus Package

[RockX]

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 week to the congressional panel charged with finding ways to reduce the nation’s debt.


Almost half the stimulus would come from tax cuts, which include an extension of a two-percentage-point reduction in the payroll tax paid by workers due to expire Dec. 31 and a new decrease in the portion of the tax paid by employers.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...00-billion-for-jobs-to-boost-u-s-economy.html



Another stimulus package, another failure in the making. Guess pissing away $830 billion in 2009 was not enough proof that it did not work the first time.

 

[Onceler]

The 1st stimulus created close to a million jobs, and saved a few hundred thousand more.

$300 bill is nothing in the scheme of things. If he wants to pass it, he should offer concessions on domestic drilling...

 

[NOVA]

That will be the big plan.....we needed a joint session of Congress to gather and get all the TV cameras and radio stations to carry the messiahs words....and what will his big plan be................

more of the same
more giveaways
more welfare
more spending
and a demand for tax hikes
​

 

[NOVA]

The 1st stimulus created close to a million jobs, and saved a few hundred thousand more.

$300 bill is nothing in the scheme of things. If he wants to pass it, he should offer concessions on domestic drilling...

Don't advertise your gullibility

 

[apple0154]

That will be the big plan.....we needed a joint session of Congress to gather and get all the TV cameras and radio stations to carry the messiahs words....and what will his big plan be................

more of the same
more giveaways
more welfare
more spending
and a demand for tax hikes
​

You'll have to dig a little deeper in your pocket, Bravo.

 

[NOVA]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs
during the first year of the Obama administration -- January 2009 through January 2010.

True ?

From PolitiFact

During a May 16, 2011, interview with Bloomberg television, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., praised President Barack Obama’s record on jobs while taking a shot at former President George W. Bush.
“We got in this situation where we had tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country, which did not create jobs,” she said. “In the first year of the Obama administration, more jobs were created in the private-sector than in the eight years of the Bush administration, with all of the tax cuts that President Bush had.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi resurrected a talking point about job growth under President Barack Obama in a Bloomberg television interview. Politifact checked her math.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy shed almost 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the first year of the Obama administration — January 2009 through January 2010.
Meanwhile, during eight years under Bush, the economy gained a net 188,000 private sector jobs.
So while job growth under Bush was anemic by historical standards, it was still better than the 4.2 million jobs lost under Obama. That means Pelosi was wrong.


Its boggles the mind that true believers like Onecell still cling to the lies no matter what we tell them

 

[Onceler]

Don't advertise your gullibility

It's a legit suggestion. I realize your sensitive about being braindead, though....

 

[Mr. T]

They will have to pass it to see what is inside the bill

The Democratic Party: Con-men elected by the ignorant and the arrogant

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The 1st stimulus created close to a million jobs, and saved a few hundred thousand more.

$300 bill is nothing in the scheme of things. If he wants to pass it, he should offer concessions on domestic drilling...

Ok.... you have to link us up to the above.... WHERE did it 'create' a million jobs? I know the whole mantra of 'it saved jobs' is fun, great... but do show us where the stimulus created jobs.

$300B shows that he has absolutely NO IDEA what to do.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ok.... you have to link us up to the above.... WHERE did it 'create' a million jobs? I know the whole mantra of 'it saved jobs' is fun, great... but do show us where the stimulus created jobs.

$300B shows that he has absolutely NO IDEA what to do.

Where? The United States.

 

[Onceler]

The propoganda about the "failed stimulus" is so reminiscent of other rightie propoganda jobs (like Saddam/AlQaeda). Just repeat something enough, and it will eventually be true.

I have seen posters on this board repeat that the stimlus created "no jobs". No jobs at all.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm a douche bag.

thanks for sharing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The propoganda about the "failed stimulus" is so reminiscent of other rightie propoganda jobs (like Saddam/AlQaeda). Just repeat something enough, and it will eventually be true.

I have seen posters on this board repeat that the stimlus created "no jobs". No jobs at all.

The proper phrase is no NET jobs. With unemployment higher today than it was when the stimulus was enacted, that would be correct.

The stimulus did its job in that it stopped the bleeding. The stimulus failed in that it did not fulfill Obama's primary goal of keeping unemployment under 8%.

That said, it is not likely a coincidence that the jobs being added to the economy abruptly slowed down to a crawl when Obamacare was enacted.

 

[Bonestorm]

The proper phrase is no NET jobs. With unemployment higher today than it was when the stimulus was enacted, that would be correct.

The stimulus did its job in that it stopped the bleeding. The stimulus failed in that it did not fulfill Obama's primary goal of keeping unemployment under 8%.

That said, it is not likely a coincidence that the jobs being added to the economy abruptly slowed down to a crawl when Obamacare was enacted.

If you believe that nonsense you really are a simpleton. The appropriate measure of the effectiveness of the stimulus is total number of jobs in the absence of the stimulus (which, while inherently unknowable can be projected) and the total number of jobs with the stimulus. I'm sure you're well aware of this.


Edit: And the "Obamacare" thing is hilarious. You're betraying how deeply you are steeped in the right-wing bullshit machine.

 

[Onceler]

The proper phrase is no NET jobs. With unemployment higher today than it was when the stimulus was enacted, that would be correct.

The stimulus did its job in that it stopped the bleeding. The stimulus failed in that it did not fulfill Obama's primary goal of keeping unemployment under 8%.

That said, it is not likely a coincidence that the jobs being added to the economy abruptly slowed down to a crawl when Obamacare was enacted.

That's a BS metric. The idea of the stimulus was to create & save jobs, period.

It did.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If you believe that nonsense you really are a simpleton. The appropriate measure of the effectiveness of the stimulus is total number of jobs in the absence of the stimulus (which, while inherently unknowable can be projected) and the total number of jobs with the stimulus. I'm sure you're well aware of this.

I am sure that is what your Dem masters want you to believe. The appropriate measure of the stimulus is EXACTLY what Obama stated he expected it to do. Not some mysterious 'jobs saved projections' that are pulled out of the asses of those that wish to make it look like the money wasn't wasted. As I stated, it did its job in terms of stopping the bleeding. It failed in living up to your masters projections.

Edit: And the "Obamacare" thing is hilarious. You're betraying how deeply you are steeped in the right-wing bullshit machine.

I am sure that you find it funny that people are still unemployed. I on the other hand recognize Obamacare for the job killing monstrosity that it is. You live in a dream world where uncertainty doesn't affect hiring. In the real world, uncertainty leads to paralysis. The greater the uncertainty, the longer the paralysis lasts. That is FACT.

 

[Bonestorm]

I am sure that is what your Dem masters want you to believe. The appropriate measure of the stimulus is EXACTLY what Obama stated he expected it to do. Not some mysterious 'jobs saved projections' that are pulled out of the asses of those that wish to make it look like the money wasn't wasted. As I stated, it did its job in terms of stopping the bleeding. It failed in living up to your masters projections.

Of course, this presumes that Obama has perfect predictive ability and the ability to know at the time the stimulus was proposed exactly the scope of the recession, which, if I understand your criticism of his performance to date, likely is an incorrect presumption. And I believe the issue under discussion is whether the stimulus created jobs, not whether the stimulus lived up to Obama's projections.

I am sure that you find it funny that people are still unemployed. I on the other hand recognize Obamacare for the job killing monstrosity that it is. You live in a dream world where uncertainty doesn't affect hiring. In the real world, uncertainty leads to paralysis. The greater the uncertainty, the longer the paralysis lasts. That is FACT.

You're a douche. If anyone wants to know where SF got his laughable "Obamacare" criticism, it was the Heritage Foundation, which circulated this hilarious chart:

This is what the actual jobs picture looked like before and after "Obamacare"

As everyone knows, the real job killer was the Tea Party:

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's a BS metric. The idea of the stimulus was to create & save jobs, period.

It did.

LMAO.... wrong.... the idea cannot be BS given it was the metric the PRESIDENT used to justify implementing it. Just because you don't LIKE it, doesn't change that. As I stated, it was successful in the first metric. It stopped the bleeding.

But you are wrong to suggest that it 'created' jobs, at least in terms of unemployment. You can't go from 8% to 9.1% and say it met the second metric. PERIOD.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Of course, this presumes that Obama has perfect predictive ability and the ability to know at the time the stimulus was proposed exactly the scope of the recession, which, if I understand your criticism of his performance to date, likely is an incorrect presumption. And I believe the issue under discussion is whether the stimulus created jobs, not whether the stimulus lived up to Obama's projections.

The issue being discussed is whether or not the stimulus worked. As I stated, it succeeded on one metric, failed on another. You just can't handle that your master failed at something.

You're a douche. If anyone wants to know where SF got his laughable "Obamacare" criticism, it was the Heritage Foundation, which circulated this hilarious chart:

Ok... so they source their data on their charts whereas you provide NO source to the data from your charts. Yet it is the Heritage foundation that is 'laughable'??? You are such a douche bag.






This is what the actual jobs picture looked like before and after "Obamacare"

So lets take a look at YOUR source..... http://danbraganca.com/

Take a look at what happened to GDP growth after Obamacare.... it also began to decline after the monstrosity was enacted. Right at the same time job growth began to revert to anemic growth. But yeah, somehow you want to tie it to the Tea Party.

Oh look, you got your second chart from the hilarious Mother Jones. Can't imagine you using a far left wingnut website for your charts.... you douche bag. The slow down occurred long before the DEM controlled Congress tried to pass the debt increase on to the incoming Republican House. Tell us douche bag... why is it that Obama/Reid/Pelosi didn't raise the debt ceiling in December of 2010 when they had the chance? Oh yeah, because they wanted to play politics rather than actually doing their job. The same reason the idiots can't pass a budget in Obama's entire time in office.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

Side note douche bag... the ABOVE is where I got my data from. Not heritage. Though Heritage DOES use the same source for their charts. You just feebly attempted to dismiss my point with your child like attempts to attack the source rather than actually disputing the data. Instead you provide charts that don't even bother sourcing their data.


2009 -820 -726 -796 -660 -386 -502 -300 -231 -236 -221 -55 -130
2010 -39 -35 192 277 458 -192 -49 -59 -29 171 93 152
2011 68 235 194 217 53 20 85(P) 0(P)

It fell off a cliff after Obama care was enacted and it has been anemic ever since.