• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does President Obama want his "new" jobs bill to pass?

Does Obama want the American Jobs Act of 2011 to pass?

  • Total voters
    11
cpwill

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,605
Reaction score
39,893
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't think he does - the facts that he hadn't bothered to write it, hadn't bothered to lock on a Democrat Congresscritter to bring it up, and that Harry Reid hasn't scheduled an actual quick vote on it are rather indicative. Obama at this point is out of arrows - the Stimulus failed to do what he thought it would do, the Fed is tapped. He's not going to be able to seriously lower unemployment or increase growth between now and 2012... so what he needs instead, is a counternarrative. He needs a foil so that he can campaign on "If Only They Had Passed My Bill We Would Be In Recovery Right Now"... but (critically), they can't actually pass it, or else the jig is up. So, you pay for the whole thing with tax increases (which you know Republicans will refuse to do), in order to poison-pill it, and viola - you have a campaign stump speech to run against Congress with.

Again, though, they can't pass the bill. If Republicans introduce and pass portions of the Presidents' Proposals (say, the Trade agreements and the Payroll tax extension), then it puts Democrats in a tough bind. Either the Senate sits on it, which severely degrades the ability to run against obstructionist Republicans, or it passes, and it moderately to severely degrades the impact of the "darn them they won't do what I asked" motif.

A Risky Play by the President. We shall see how it turns out.
 
I think he planned it to pass at least as much as Ryan planned his budget to pass. Take that as you will.
 
I voted no. I believe Obama is gearing up for full campaign mode for reelection. If it does not pass, he will use it to say, see the repubs tied my hands, they don't want you to have a job, they pander to the rich, etc,.
 
mike2810 said:
I voted no. I believe Obama is gearing up for full campaign mode for reelection. If it does not pass, he will use it to say, see the repubs tied my hands, they don't want you to have a job, they pander to the rich, etc,.
Click to expand...

One of the problems with polls like this is that it oversimplifies things. I think Obama would love it to pass, but realizes it won't and put it forward for political reasons. This actually makes it slightly better than the Ryan plan, who knew his bill would never pass and if he had any brains did not want it to, but it is still playing games with the legislative process and shows the failure at both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. It is win win for Obama personally however: if it passes he gets a boost to GDP and employment next year, if it fails he gets something to use in the campaign.
 
Redress said:
One of the problems with polls like this is that it oversimplifies things. I think Obama would love it to pass
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Half the mans' proposal seems to consist of extending the payroll tax cuts already in effect. He and his team know that if this passed en-total that its' effect on the economy would be marginal at best. Then he would be running in 2012 with...... nothing.
 
Redress said:
One of the problems with polls like this is that it oversimplifies things. I think Obama would love it to pass, but realizes it won't and put it forward for political reasons. This actually makes it slightly better than the Ryan plan, who knew his bill would never pass and if he had any brains did not want it to, but it is still playing games with the legislative process and shows the failure at both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. It is win win for Obama personally however: if it passes he gets a boost to GDP and employment next year, if it fails he gets something to use in the campaign.
Click to expand...

This is basically what I believe. If it passes it will surely help the economy, and he can run on that, and if it doesn't he can blame the republicans. Win win for Obama.
 
Of course he does and while some haters think nothing says "I Don't Care" more than an enormous paper clip? I have faith he does wish for this to pass:2razz:
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
This is basically what I believe. If it passes it will surely help the economy, and he can run on that, and if it doesn't he can blame the republicans. Win win for Obama.
Click to expand...

:lamo yeah. if a quarter of a trillion from Bush plus Two point Eight Trillion from the Fed plus another Trillion from the first Stimulus didn't do squat, surely all that is missing is another $450 Billion. America is only a tax-credit-for-hiring-a-veteran away from 4% annual growth, no doubt. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Kali said:
Of course he does and while some haters think nothing says "I Don't Care" more than an enormous paper clip? I have faith he does wish for this to pass:2razz:
Click to expand...

touching.


naive.....


but indeed touching :).
 
cpwill said:
:lamo yeah. if a quarter of a trillion from Bush plus Two point Eight Trillion from the Fed plus another Trillion from the first Stimulus didn't do squat, surely all that is missing is another $450 Billion. America is only a tax-credit-for-hiring-a-veteran away from 4% annual growth, no doubt. :lol:
Click to expand...

It's not the amount of money it's how it is spent. Also about half of the previous stimulus was tax cuts. I think Obama should have just given up trying to appeal to the republicans very quickly during his term, and when he had an all democratic congress passed a New Deal 2, but that didn't happen, one can dream though.
 
cpwill said:
:lamo yeah. if a quarter of a trillion from Bush plus Two point Eight Trillion from the Fed plus another Trillion from the first Stimulus didn't do squat, surely all that is missing is another $450 Billion. America is only a tax-credit-for-hiring-a-veteran away from 4% annual growth, no doubt. :lol:
Click to expand...

Except that those did have significant effects. Sorry, but just saying stuff doesn't make it so. CBO among others all point to the stimulus for example having a definite positive effect on employment and GDP growth.
 
What jobs bill?
 
Your Star said:
It's not the amount of money it's how it is spent. Also about half of the previous stimulus was tax cuts. I think Obama should have just given up trying to appeal to the republicans very quickly during his term, and when he had an all democratic congress passed a New Deal 2, but that didn't happen, one can dream though.
Click to expand...

Heck, it took them a year to pass Obamacare even with all three branches.
 
Redress said:
Except that those did have significant effects. Sorry, but just saying stuff doesn't make it so. CBO among others all point to the stimulus for example having a definite positive effect on employment and GDP growth.
Click to expand...

This is true, one problem was that it wasn't big enough. That the problem was bigger then we thought.
 
I dont think either side cares what pass's they are in campaign mode and all they are interested in is the voters perceptions.
 
Your Star said:
It's not the amount of money it's how it is spent.
Click to expand...

:) not according to the very Keyensian theory upon which the notion of stimulative spending is built. Famously, he suggested you might as well hire people to bury it in jars and then hire people to dig it up. Ben Bernanke has jokingly stated that he might consider flying around the country in a helicopter, just shoveling cash out an open side-door.

Also about half of the previous stimulus was tax cuts.
Click to expand...

that is incorrect - the second stimulus included tax credits; which operate in the economy the same as government distribution of funds. They don't actually have much positive effect because they do not have alter any long-term considerations; and in a highly leveraged economy (such as - ta da! - ours) the "multiplier effect" is actually negative).

I think Obama should have just given up trying to appeal to the republicans very quickly during his term, and when he had an all democratic congress passed a New Deal 2, but that didn't happen, one can dream though.
Click to expand...

umm.... he did. when Congress was unfillibusterable they couldn't care less what Republicans thought or did - the debate was wholly within the Democrat Party. Famously, Obamacare came without a Public Option not because the Republican Caucus was unanimously opposed to it, but because Democrat Senators were.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Except that those did have significant effects. Sorry, but just saying stuff doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

oh, never would I argue that the Stimulus (and Obamacare) haven't had large effects. quite the opposite:

EmployRecessJune2011-small.jpg


The administrations' policies have had quite an impact.

CBO among others all point to the stimulus for example having a definite positive effect on employment and GDP growth.
Click to expand...

The CBO was ordered to take Romers' magical 1.4 Multiplier Effect and assume that it held... and so that is what they did. In realityland, however, the Stimulus' success can be easily gauged by whether or not it achieved its' predictions. Here in Realityland we call this the "Scientific Method".

The problem lies with the fact that the entire notion of Stimulative Spending is a Broken Window Fallacy. Never do they ask where the money is coming from, or what it would elsewise be doing.
 
cpwill said:
I don't think he does - the facts that he hadn't bothered to write it, hadn't bothered to lock on a Democrat Congresscritter to bring it up, and that Harry Reid hasn't scheduled an actual quick vote on it are rather indicative. Obama at this point is out of arrows - the Stimulus failed to do what he thought it would do, the Fed is tapped. He's not going to be able to seriously lower unemployment or increase growth between now and 2012... so what he needs instead, is a counternarrative. He needs a foil so that he can campaign on "If Only They Had Passed My Bill We Would Be In Recovery Right Now"... but (critically), they can't actually pass it, or else the jig is up. So, you pay for the whole thing with tax increases (which you know Republicans will refuse to do), in order to poison-pill it, and viola - you have a campaign stump speech to run against Congress with.
Click to expand...


Obama to propose $1.5 Trillion in Tax Increases

yeah, I'd say I pretty much called this.



:lol: and apparently he took out the trade deals that he claimed would create jobs "right now"... too bipartisan, I suppose. Don't want to risk those passing ;).
 
He wants it to pass, but if it doesn't, he's taking full political advantage of it. He'll paint the Republicans as anti-jobs/anti common person. He's not stupid. He knows how the system works.
 
if he wanted it to pass - why did he take out the parts that had actual bipartisan support?
 
Republicans want to lower the debt by entitlement cuts to all middleclass and poor programs....Democrats want to cut spending and raise some taxs....

You decide...I already have...after watching what teaparty supported govs have done in their states..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom