Chart Breaks Down President Obama's Jobs Plan

[Better Believe It]

Breaking down Obama’s jobs plan

President Obama urged Congress Thursday night to pass a $447 billion plan that he said will get the economy moving and create jobs. The proposal would cost a little more than half of the 2009 stimulus package and, according to Obama, be paid for by additional deficit reduction that he will outline Sept. 19.

Sources: White House, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Karen Yourish and Laura Stanton/The Washington Post.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/breaking-down-obamas-jobs-plan/2011/09/08/gIQAaZpEDK_graphic.htmlBreaking

[Tippy]

1. K&R

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turbineguy]

5. They'll take that dare

and raise you three loopholes.

[backscatter712]

8. They'll do it, but we can call them out for doing it.

We need to be openly calling them unpatriotic if they refuse to do this just so they can keep the economy shitty for the election.

[IndyPragmatist]

18. Are you kidding me? They will happily oppose it

It adds to the debt...

That's it. That is all that matters to them right now. I lot of "moderates" are on the fence right now about Obama and their strategy is to continue to paint Obama and the Democrats as wasteful spenders.

It's an election strategy and it will probably be successful. Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy. They oppose the stimulus because it didn't work as promised. Right or wrong, that's their viewpoint.

I don't expect this to become law.

[Sirveri]

3. oh joy, more tax cuts.

Because those have worked every other time we tried them, right? I'll take the other stuff though.

[Recursion]

12. Since this can't pass, politically he needs to push the most conservative plan he can

The American public does not believe direct spending on jobs helps the economy. They're wrong, but that doesn't matter here. A jobs bill won't pass. This bill won't pass. He needs to find and push the most conservative bill that will still not pass, and this is probably it.

[Sirveri]

44. wait what? I agree it can't pass, but why should he push something conservative?

I mean seriously, they're not going to like him. We used to, we can come back, all he needs to do is put a progressive plan on the table. Hell the majority of Americans already wants taxes on the top hiked up, who's to say that they don't also want a direct jobs program? I'll agree that the media says it doesn't believe direct spending creates jobs, but they're a bunch of owned lying morons. Not quite the same thing as my neighbors and the rest of average America.

I think the thing that frustrates me the most is that he doesn't even try. All the division on this board would be gone like a flash in the pan if he actually tried to push progressive stuff through and it either bombed out or got mangled. But he doesn't, so we're forced to wonder if he's even on our side.

[Recursion]

51. Because the big squishy center he needs to win over disagrees with us very strongly about direct...

...government hiring. Very strongly. He needs to push something as far away from that as he can without making something so conservative that the GOP might actually pass it.

All the division on this board would be gone like a flash in the pan if he actually tried to push progressive stuff through and it either bombed out or got mangled.

Clearly not, since he did try to push progressive stuff first and the board's amnesia kicked in after about a week.

[Sirveri]

52. Why do you think the middle opposes direct hiring? Do you have any data to support that?

>>All the division on this board would be gone like a flash in the pan if he actually tried to push progressive stuff through and it either bombed out or got mangled.

>Clearly not, since he did try to push progressive stuff first and the board's amnesia kicked in after about a week.

What's he done for me lately though, and at the time you didn't see people bashing Obama, you saw us bashing Reed for being a spineless waste of space.

Well most of us, we can't ignore the couple people still rehashing the primary fights.

Actually, I think that was during my mod term (so I actually saw quite a lot of DU back then), I remember it only really started tanking once he basically abandoned single payer and then one of his staffers called all the progressives retards. GLBT's were already plenty pissed off about Rick Warren and the inauguration though, plus the residual blow back from prop h8.

[Inuca]

14. Not all tax cuts are created equal n/t

[Modern_Matthew]

+1. Sad that people here support regressive taxes on low income earners. nt

[Sirveri]

42. FICA is not a tax, it's an insurance fee. Here's the difference:

With Social Security, otherwise known by OASDI or Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance, you pay in at a flat rate to a set cap, however your payout rate changes depending on your pay in amount.

So off the top of my head, if you pay in less than 9k you get back 90% of what you put in, up to around 65k you get back like 35-40%, above that you get a return of 10%.

So the tax is regressive on paper because of the cap, but in practice this caps total benefit payouts, and lower income recipients get a better return than upper income recipients by percentage although not by value. So basically up to a certain point the rich pay the same rate as everyone else but they get a dramatically lower return for their premiums. In addition the rich are much less likely to utilize their disability insurance, or unemployment insurance (which is also covered by FICA). Above the cap is irrelevent, they don't pay in and gain nothing, it's zero sum, they simply hit max benefit payout.

Now, the cap should be raised to recapture at least 90% of incomes, and that would actually solve any existing potential funding shortfalls. Then tie that into top tier income growth rates and you'll never have to adjust it again, since it's currently tied into CPI-W and the top 5% almost always grows at a faster rate than CPI.

[Sirveri]

43. So this one will magically create jobs where all others failed?

Has it yet?

[Lorien]

4. Fail. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Question:

"Plan would eliminate taxes for firms that add workers"
is that limited to firms located and hiring in the USA??????

or
did multinational outsourcing big firms just get a HUGE gift?

[Inuca]

15. I am almost sure that it is limited

to small businesses.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. Unless it specifically says so in any legislation, I would not bet on it.

[Inuca]

25. Here is the answer

Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. Helpful, thanks.

[Donnachaidh]

24. that's an EXCELLENT question!

But I suspect all you'll hear from the chorus is crickets. You see, that's not within the *here's your pony, eat your peas* mindset of the blinkered battalion. :shrug:

[Sirveri]

45. payroll taxes are FICA and only paid by American citizens.

So in this case since overseas hires don't pay ANY payroll tax anyways, all it really does is make the American worker more competitive in that area. This is of course totally pointless since the average American worker can't work for 16 hours a day every day for only 12 dollars a day.

[a simple pattern]

54. Good call.

They should have to hire citizens, too, not "exchange students" or H1bs, and they should not be allowed to use prison labor.

[peace13]

7. The last two are pretty disgusting!

Really, a tax cut for hiring long term unemployed? When few pay taxes including small businesses, you can strike this off as a fake to the left. And then there is 5 billion for work opportunities for the low income individuals. I wonder if this includes the folks at Wendy's and WalMart who have to work two and three jobs to make ends meet while grandma takes care of the kids. Are we sure we want to spend the whole five billion there? It looks like they are taking care of the problem themselves! I am pretty certain that 5 will not cover the cost of those currently underemployed let alone the unemployed.

What is it with the payroll tax cuts? Do folks not know that this a business tax cut to social security? As a small business owner I find this totally mind blowing. First they raid the 401 K's and then Wall Street and the mutual funds followed closely by the devaluation of homes and business real estate. Now.....social security, the last life ring in the pond is being dismantled under the guise of a jobs plan.

As I see it this is a gift to the corps with a topping of infrastructure financing. If Ohio is like any other state, these funds too will go to one or two large corps that do all of the infrastructure work.

Don't want to seem down in the mouth but there really is not much to talk about here. No wonder the TV was so enamored with the terror threat from unsubstantiated sources. At least there were some bones to chew!

[mmonk]

9. Infrastructure and extention of unemployment benefits is all I would

propose because they are the only things of worth under current conditions. Corporations are paying very little historically while they aren't suffering (except for local small business where I would concentrate). The economy needs demand currently. Aid to states I would predicate on whether they agree not to cut their budgets. Otherwise, it won't be a stimulus but holding ground.

[hifiguy]

10. Tax cuts have done so much to improve the economy

over the last ten years. :eyes: And now he is engaging in a stealth defunding of Social Security. What in the blue hell will it take to wake some people up to the fact that this is an overwhelmingly corporatist bill (and administration)?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Recursion]

13. What's the point in pushing for a politically unpopular policy that can't pass Congress?

There are times that it's good to push a politically unpopular bill that can pass.
There are times that it's good to push a politically popular bill that can't pass (this is one of those times, and it's what Obama is doing).
I can't think of a time when it's good to push a politically unpopular bill that also can't pass.

The public does not believe that additional direct government spending will help the economy. They are wrong. But that doesn't matter because there is no test on macroeconomics required to vote. So he needs to find the most conservative bill that won't pass and undermine as much GOP support as he can. Which seems to be what he's doing.

[mmonk]

21. People see only what they want to.

[LadyInAZ]

11. Wondering...

how long will it take government to implement this plan once approved. assistance is needed now to the american people. we can not wait 14 months for the next election for possible changes.

[xchrom]

16. Recommend

[ProSense]

17. Here's some good stuff

Economists: Obama’s plan would work (if it passes)

Jared Bernstein: Moody's Mark Zandi crunches the numbers for the Americans Jobs Act

Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Act

[mmonk]

31. At what cost? How does it benefit the people in the long run?

Let's face it, the infrastructure part is the part that would work but has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. But all the cuts and the assault on Medicare will. Do not arm the enemy is my motto.

[Creideiki]

19. At least I read this before eating.

No retraining the longterm unemployed/underemployed, so if you used to have a good job, but now are making less than half what you used to, too bad so sad.

Time to concentrate on states and Congressional races again. At least there can be some hope for change we can believe in there.

[Inuca]

27. Some answers

•The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:
◦Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.
◦A new “Bridge to Work” program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displacedtake temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.
◦Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.
•A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
•Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
•Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

[Creideiki]

32. Doesn't help the underemployed.

This isn't a 2009-present event. My career was tanked with the dot-bomb in 2001.

This is similar to the pre-Gulf War to Gulf War divide among veterans. And it sucks. And again, this tonedeaf President doesn't get it because IT DOESN'T EFFECT HIM!

Think I'm angry at the Democratic Party? You bet I am. Think I'm getting angrier? Why would that surprise you?

[Inuca]

34. I can empathize

I make roughly half of what I was making some 3 years ago. Full time, but way below my qualifications. But I am glad I have the job, and I (almost) manage to make ends meet. So I understand your frustration but I think you directing it at the wrong people.

[Creideiki]

37. I shouldn't be directing it at the people who buy into the bullshit?

I think you're not directing it at the right people.

There's a subtle difference.

[Modern_Matthew]

20. I approve of the whole enchilada. Tax cuts, too. These are for me. Not the rich. nt

[Broderick]

35. Trickle down economics doesn't work

Trickle down stimulus doesn't seem to either.

We continue to praise both in this country.

[Proud Public Servant]

22. This is win-win (-win) for Obama

Either Congress passes it; or
they fail to pass it, and he gets to call them out on doing nothing about jobs; or
they pass a watered-down, tea-Party-friendly version of it that does nothing, and he gets to call them out on not knowing how to fix the problem.

I've never subscribed to the nth-dimensional chess theory of the White House, but this is actually a pretty savvy move.

[AverageJoe90]

41. Agreed.

I may have been disappointed with our seeming lack of major successes, but either way, this could be a major boon for all of us.

[Sirveri]

53. It could also be a lose-lose (-lose).

They pass it, further cementing Social security, medicare part A and basic unemployment insurance benefits into the general fund while doing next to nothing to stimulate the economy.
OR
they fail to pass it, but he doesn't call them out on it and expresses a desire to 'move on' which makes him look even weaker than normal.
OR
they pass a version that actually does serious damage while fixing nothing and hurting potentially millions of people in the process, which he then gets the blame for (and also probably signs in without a veto).

It COULD be a savvy move if I trusted them to actually follow through and have good messaging, but well, I haven't seen it yet.

[Romulox]

26. I don't see anything on those charts related to job losses due to "free trade" with South Korea

The President is admitting that such losses will offset at least some of the potential job gains in this package.

[Inuca]

29. I don't know the details, and

FTAs may be iffy, I don't know. What I DO know is that McConnell and his ilk keep badgering that the agreements have been "on the president's table" for I don't know how long and he does not send them for approval because the "unions are holding the administration hostage" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62689.html If McConnell hates it, it cannot be all bad :-)

At the start of the agreement process, McConnell noted that the unions asked for political reforms from the trading partners, which were accepted, but now they are also insisting on taxpayer money for worker training programs.

“These delays have put America at a major economic disadvantage, costing jobs and opportunities,” McConnell wrote. “As the president has been holding out over the demands of labor union leaders, other countries are benefiting from free-trade deals of their own.”

[Romulox]

39. You're misunderstanding. McConnell is demanding the Korea Free Trade deal be passed, immediately.

He's not against it. He wants it passed. That's why he's complaining.

[Inuca]

55. Yes, he wants it passed, BUT

"the president has been holding out over the demands of labor union leaders". In other words, he does not want it passed in the form that the president wants. That was my point.

[Vinca]

28. I have a problem with the payroll tax cut - doesn't that weaken SS?

[Inuca]

30. In principle not

the money is coming from the general fund http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/Reduced-Social-Security-Withholding-For-2011.htm But as a result it adds to the famous deficit.

[Broderick]

33. Oh BOY

more tax cuts! "Where will I ever stash all this cash."


Pretending to be someone making 300K plus a year.

[Inuca]

36. These are NOT tax cuts for the rich

Read before you type, is it too much to ask?

[Sirveri]

46. Actually the employer payroll tax cuts ARE, since those are for business owners.

So basically the businesses get to pocket more money for no real reason that they don't really need, but only if their payroll is less than 5 Million.

Want to see how many companies decide to start laying people off if they're near the magic number of 5 Million? Plenty of disposable unemployed people out there to shrink their labor costs and work for less if they need them.

[bullwinkle428]

38. I'd be more enthused if that infrastructure portion was a lot bigger.

Kinda what I was hoping for after hearing "he needs to go really big".

[Luminous Animal]

40. The payroll cuts should rightly be called retirement savings cuts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Short version: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[WDIM]

48. Now END THE WARS! and pay for it!

How long does the company have to keep the employee. Will the company just let other people go or does he mean Net hiring.
They will fire people and hire people all day long if it means a break in taxes.
According to Republicans everything Businesses do is because of taxes. (loonbats)

[Lucian]

50. What a horseshit bill.

Tax cuts. Go fucking figure. And who's going to pay for them? Those who depend on Medicare and Medicaid!

And people were cheering him yesterday. :puke:

[ThomCat]

56. $240 Billion (175+65) removed from Social Security and Medicare!

So, after creating a $240 Billion hole in the social security and medicare budgets, are they going to argue that both of those programs are insolvent and need to be privatized?

This is being paying for with the blood of seniors and people with disabilities. Don't forget that.

They are already talking about pushing back the eligibility age, denying millions of people access to these services. A loss of this much money will also give them political justifications to deny cost of living adjustments, and change the formulas so that people on social security get less money and live in even more desperate poverty. They will be able to cut reimbursement rates for medical services, and cut more services from the list of what services they'll pay for.

But these are people's lives we're talking about. This people's rent, and food budgets. This health care people with disabilities need in order to live. This is health care that prevents people from suffering.

I wonder if they realize how much damage they are going to be causing. I wonder if they care. :(