Comments on: The case for Obama’s jobs program Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: DrJJJJ Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:36:39 +0000 What another half a Trillion dollars? Ya, we could cut a check to millions of Americans for $100,000.00 dollars each, but we wouldn’t be exercising our right to redistribute wealth to our favorite speciula interest now would we! Let’s spend, gamble our way out (call it progressive) and if we fail our kids should bring a pretty penny at auction! We’ll change when we hit bottom!

By: docca Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:38:33 +0000 c`mon guys, focus on the big picture, the previous adminastrations (very expensive) fondness for international militatary adventures and ability to turn a blind eye to domestic issues (housing bubble)is the reason for the debt.
Remove these factors and the debt level would be to low to mention. Whats done is done,while the US is saddled with unnecasary
debt, it`s far from unmanageable, the situation needs to be dealt with, sadly that requires trust in the government of the day..the previous government asked us to go to war with no hard evidence, basicly they asked us to trust them, we did to our detrimement. The question is the new addminastrtion needs our trust to get back on top, what does our gut tell us?

By: joe1234 Tue, 13 Sep 2011 05:38:43 +0000 @Randy549

Randy you’re completely wrong about FICA. It is in no way earmarked to an individual (although that was the original intent). Social Security benefits are also not directly related to how much FICA you’ve paid (in reality you earn credits with SSA, which maxes out quickly at just 10 years of work, and the benefit depends on the age you retire). Bill Gates won’t be getting a $1,000,000 check every month for his Social Security.

I think the source of your misinformation is the original legislation, which would have been directly tied to a individual. However, that was thrown out shortly after Social Security was created because there were millions of jobless people during the depression that needed the money immediately, not when they were 120 years old. They had paid ZERO taxes into FICA and still got Social Security and the problem has never been addressed.

Also when you compare Obama cutting FICA taxes to Bushes plan you’re comparing apples to oranges. Bushes plan was to allow private plans in place of Social Security. Guess who wins on that one? I’m guessing someone on Wall Street. That is in no way a elimination of FICA, it’s privatization, which Bush never denied.

Just to throw some more salt in your wound FICA isn’t just ‘for the sole purpose of funding Social Security.” Your forget Medicare and Unemployment. You’re just terrible.

By: GLK Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:18:30 +0000 Why would we trust the same “folks” that laid the foundation for outsourcing in the first place to do anything to bring jobs back? That’d be like trusting the same folks that use our Social Security as their piggybank to run our healthcare. LOL!

By: Shamsray Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:40:32 +0000 What process for his ‘Jobs Plan’ would Mr. Obama undertake to have the bill passed by the congress and also what’s his proposal of refunding back the money taken for the purpose is not known yet as per many critics?

By: leslie20 Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:43:55 +0000 I hope that Congress will create and pass legislation to implement the proposals that President Obama outlined — especially the much needed repairs and modernization of roads, bridges, schools, etc. for the revitalization of industry in our country and the safety of our citizens. The expense of investing in repairs and maintenance now is less than letting it crumble.

By: Randy549 Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:43:44 +0000 The author misunderstands what FICA contributions (what she calls the “payroll tax”) are really about. FICA contributions are deducted for the sole purpose of funding the Social Security program. The finances of Social Security, are, by law, kept *completely separate* from the finances of general US federal government expenditures, and are NOT a “tax” in the usual sense of the word. FICA contributions collected from each US worker are kept earmarked to later pay that person’s Social Security benefits after they end their working years and enter retirement — that is the whole purpose for each person having their own unique Social Security number. The payback that each worker gets from Social Security after retirement is *directly related* to the amount of the FICA deductions that they paid in while they worked.

The effectiveness of reducing the amount of FICA contributions that employees and employers pay as an incentive for employees to spend more and employers to hire more might have merit. But what is missing is that is far too easy, as this author appears to have done, to sweep under the rug the fact that such an action is merely a means to Party Now at the expense of The Future. Reducing FICA contributions now means that money will not be available in the future to pay Social Security retirement benefits — there is no way around it.

It is ironic that this Democrat president is proposing actions that will have substantial negative ramifications for Social Security, traditionally one of the Democrat party’s most cherished institutions. Remember how the Democrats vilified GW Bush for the much-less radical proposal to merely allow workers the *option of setting aside* a portion of their FICA contributions into private retirement accounts? And yet this president gets a free pass from the author and others in the media when he proposes *eliminating* those contributions completely. Amazing!

By: CaptnCrunch Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:34:16 +0000 Madame, it is bean counters of your very ilk who brought us to this precipice with an unwavering penchant for short term paper profits at great expense to long term fiscal health, and who now lead the rallying cry of, “Let’s buy ourselves out of debt with a credit card”.

It won’t work kid, not now, not ever. Disregard the years of hogwash implanted in your cranial crevices by ivory tower dreamers and take this little tidbit from an old warhorse businessman. There are only two ways to refloat a sinking economic ship, decrease expenses and/or increase revenue. And sure as Hell DO NOT send off for more credit cards or apply for a new bank loan.

We live in a great country and exciting times. We have the vision and we have the strength to tighten our belts, slash extraneous budgets, implement measured tax increases, and get back to living within our means.

Or, we can borrow more money as you suggest, in which case all hands to the lifeboats, women and children first, and for those who can’t swim, you’re about to get your first lesson.

By: breezinthru Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:28:06 +0000 Quote from the article: “The best way to solve our debt problem is to grow the economy and we can’t do that without better roads, bridges, Internet access and schools.”

It would be more correct to say “we can’t do that without jobs”. I don’t think it is the actual infrastructure that is freezing economic growth.

So the problem becomes how can America best create jobs. Building infrastructure might be an element of the solution to that problem, but to discover the best solution, we should consider the real problem, not an implied corollary.

I think our nation’s declining economic growth could be more accurately attributed to:

– an obscene concentration of our nation’s wealth
– an obscene concentration of our nation’s debt
– technological advances that eliminate jobs
– globalization

Embarking on a government-funded program that builds infrastructure will help a little with the concentration of wealth aspect of the problem. As in all solutions to all economic problems, there is a downside.

We need to broaden our scope if we really want to find the best solution… and maybe there will be no good solutions until the piper has been paid.

By: Lambick Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:42:35 +0000 In a japanised economy there aren’t easy fixes, like central banks soaking us with liquidity and governments throwing money around to “jump start” the economy. Both have run into the stops. America has become too lazy and it will take some time to realise that this time around it isn’t going to borrow its way out. It’ll have to be done by becoming competitive again: education and infrastructure – not things that will work short term, but it was long overdue – are where to apply your energy.

And ignore redneck rantings about tariffs and combating outsourcing. The U.S. has to put its house in order and clean up the appalling mess left behind by messrs Bush and Greenspan.