home

AP Analysis: Obama's Job Plan is an IOU

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 08:16:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Associated Press has this analysis of Obama's assertion that his job bill pays for himself:

The jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today's Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.

Anyone else notice Obama is proposing taxes on those who make $200,000 rather than $250,000? Is that gross income before deductions? Or taxable income? Or what?

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    AP Analysis: Obama's Job Plan is an IOU | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    $200,000 rather than $250,000? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 09:07:53 PM EST
    Here's a question which will help you figure that out.

    Which brings in more tax revenues?

    Whats the diff? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:45:36 AM EST
    .

    They are both in the same class with millionaires and billionaires that Obama says don't pay enough taxes.

    .

    Parent

    A proposed IOU on increased taxes (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    that will never get through Congress is IMO appropriate to pay for a job creation proposal that also will never get through Congress.

    The proposed tax cuts and creation of a free labor pool for corporations may happen. Actual job creation, don't think so.

    I think you are criticizing the wrong thing (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 10:44:07 PM EST
    Paying for economic stimulus with either budget cuts or tax increases is stupid.  The thing to do is to borrow while interest rates are low so that you can stimulate the economy, which will increase tax revenues and enable you to pay down the debt.  The problem with the plan is that the stimulus it proposes is tepid at best.

    I'm confused. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Addison on Mon Sep 12, 2011 at 11:25:26 PM EST
    Wait. If it may not be paid back (an "IOU") doesn't that mean it's deficit spending on a jobs creation plan? Isn't this what progressives wanted?
    Yes (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 08:34:06 AM EST
    I don't understand what Jeralyn is getting at either.

    Parent
    If it was just a jobs bill, it could actually (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 06:49:43 AM EST
    be exciting, but this is a jobs bill that's going to be paid for with (1) revenue increases that are never going to be acceptable to the GOP and (2) spending cuts that shouldn't be acceptable to anyone - AND - he's got a SuperCommittee raring to go on even more spending cuts that exceed the $1.5 billion mandate.

    I wish I could believe in fairies, I wish it were true that tax credits create jobs, I wish it made sense to take people on unemployment and give them what amount to unpaid internships ("unpaid" because the employers for whom these people will work are not the ones paying them - the employees are being allowed to continue to collect unemployment benefits, so they are, to the employer, free labor - and there is no guarantee that when the unemployment runs out, the employer will officially hire the person and put him or her on the payroll), and I wish I could stop thinking that if Obama was really serious about jobs, he wouldn't have waited until he could use the issue as a campaign strategy.

    As my grandmother used to say - "if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride."

    About the free labor pool (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 07:50:44 AM EST
    From what I'm reading this idea may not be a one time idea but an actual redesign of the unemployment progress. This is a really bad idea.

    The employers are under no obligation to hire anyone. They can just keep training a new pool of people and maintain a certain level of free labor indefinitely without ever hiring even one new employee. Reasons why this is such a bad idea.

    1. Has the potential to reduce jobs rather than create them. Why hire new paid employees if you can get them for free?

    2. Unemployed person will be spending hours preforming free labor that could be better spent looking for a real job.

    3. Unemployed person must spend money from their limited unemployment benefits to get to and from job, child care, lunch money and other job related expense while being trained (questionable) to perform a low paying job.  

     

    Parent
    Tommy Thompson did just this (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 08:16:07 AM EST
    with his "Wisconsin Works" welfare program when he was governor (before he went to DC to head HEW).

    It didn't work.

    But then, this is an ahistorical White House administration.  

    Parent

    Here is recent reporting (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Towanda on Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 08:28:50 AM EST
    on the "W-2" debacle that continues.  (If anyone at the WH or in Congress is reading this and cares to research why to avoid this plan, "W-2" is the catchy term that may be the most useful search term.)

    Fewer than 20% of potential Wisconsin Works clients receive any cash aid.

    The W-2 trends have prompted critics to renew their call for refor