• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama Speech on Jobs

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Craig234 said:
Yes, they do. Our economy is 2/3 consumer based, and this is a very high rate of the money going into consumer spending, which creates jobs.

You seem to have a warped idea of the economy.



You have a point there.



Tens of millions of workers will.
Click to expand...

Consumers do not directly create jobs; consumer spending only indirectly spurs job creation. Right now job growth is stagnant because of economic uncertainty. Businesses feel like Congress, the White House, and the Fed/Treasury have no real plan on how to fix things. If you put a little bit of money into circulation through tax cuts without addressing the underlying uncertainty consumers won't spend and businesses won't expand.

What has been speculated so far in this jobs announcement does nothing to address the underlying concerns about economic certainty. As a result, any small patchwork effort like the alleged payroll tax cut will be ineffective as a policy tool.
 
I'm not a Starbucks fan because they are too expensive for coffee but I like the CEO's idea of cutting off funding for the Politicians.

It's a start
 
No No No No

Extending Unemployment extends the problem.

If they can't find a job here in the U.S. it is time to get the fuck out of the country.

The answer is for people to go to the countries that are hiring, the U.S. is not hiring, it is a dying off country.
 
sactoking said:
-snip-
Right now job growth is stagnant because of economic uncertainty. Businesses feel like Congress, the White House, and the Fed/Treasury have no real plan on how to fix things. If you put a little bit of money into circulation through tax cuts without addressing the underlying uncertainty consumers won't spend and businesses won't expand.

What has been speculated so far in this jobs announcement does nothing to address the underlying concerns about economic certainty. As a result, any small patchwork effort like the alleged payroll tax cut will be ineffective as a policy tool.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

From some info CFO type info I get (surveys etc), I still see real concerns about uncertainty.

Another thing, which I found interesting since it's discussed a lot here, was why companies are hoarding cash. Basically, they're using it build 'safety cushions' should more problems develop etc.

Also, after watching what happened to Deep Horizons (not sure of it's the correct company?) following their gulf oil spill has strongly encourage companies to risk plan more and of course that means keeping more cash cushion as a safety measure. Deep Horizons was forced to sell off a lot of their assets as below FMV to raise the cash they needed. That hurts.

Fern
 
ok, he's talking about eliminating deductions. As predicted he's going after the mortgage interest deduction to completely kill the housing market.

Mark it, he'll propose that and take away HCE cap on social security.
 
There wasn't anything in this speech that will help Americans.

The only option for Americans that cannot make it in this new America is to leave the country.
 
Well I thought he did a great job with the speech over all. I will have to actually look at the plan to see specifics. I never listen to speeches to see what they are actually going to give us.
 
spidey07 said:
ok, he's talking about eliminating deductions. As predicted he's going after the mortgage interest deduction to completely kill the housing market.
-snip-
Click to expand...

I hope they give that some rigorous analysis.

If it does hurt home sales that may be a significant problem.

Fewer new homes means less rebound in employment.

Fewer sales of existing homes means weaker prices. It also means more foreclosures. It also means more trouble for derivatives/CDO's etc. Means more trouble banks, and Fanny/Freddie etc.

Fern
 
dmcowen674 said:
There wasn't anything in this speech that will help Americans.

The only option for Americans that cannot make it in this new America is to leave the country.
Click to expand...

I've been offering to buy you a one way ticket to anywhere you want, most recently Somalia since that is what you have said you want the U.S. to become, for at least a couple of years now. All you have to do is to earn it is never set foot back on U.S. soil again.
 
Wow, what a great political speech by President Obama.

Whether that can break political gridlock in Congress, who knows, but I think it makes obvious the hypocrisy of Teabaggers and blindly partisan Republicans who are just trying to hold back the economic recovery that is already taking place (if you listen to earnings reports of actual businesses, no one currently sees a double dip recession; technical recession most likely will be based upon severe austerity imposed upon state and local government).

One commentator on CNBC Asia earlier tonight said each job created would cost $200K ($300 billion stimulus package, 1% reduction in employment rate), but I believe if this program eliminates the double dip recession stock market might be hinting at and doesn't damage consumer confidence to the extent that is permanently damages the U. S. economy's peak growth prospects going forward, it has paid for itself (as Ron Insana said yesterday on CNBC, tax receipts historically have been 18% of GDP, but are currently only 14%. He also said 20% of unemployed are construction workers).

Cramer also yesterday said global market strategist for JP Morgan (Stuart Schweiter?; who apparently is really hot in terms of predictions) said China CPI & PPI (China CPI is supposed to be released at 10 PM tonight) might be turning corner, so China no longer has to tighten, at least for now, to control inflation in their country and can be an engine for global growth. Europe might be having regional Lehman type financial crisis, U. S. economy might be muddling along, but rest of world might have great growth prospects if their inflation can be controlled (e. g. stronger dollar reducing their commodity costs?)
 
Last edited:
Fern said:
I hope they give that some rigorous analysis.

If it does hurt home sales that may be a significant problem.

Fewer new homes means less rebound in employment.

Fewer sales of existing homes means weaker prices. It also means more foreclosures. It also means more trouble for derivatives/CDO's etc. Means more trouble banks, and Fanny/Freddie etc.

Fern
Click to expand...

Homes are only for the rich in the new America.
 
I heard most of it. Overall the approach seems sound. A couple things I don't care for.

1) School construction/maintenance and teacher hiring is a local/state issue. If folks want to vote themselves into becoming a low tax hellhole why should the federal taxpayers cover for their negligence/shortsightedness?

2) Decreasing the payroll tax that funds Social Security and funding the shortfall out of income tax revenues is a shortsighted approach. I understand that it is an attempt to push the tax up the food chain but it only works if those up the food chain actually are taxed more to pay for it. Otherwise it is just adding to deficit spending. A better approach to lowering payroll tax rates would be to remove the cap on SS contributions and lower the rate.
 
IronWing said:
I heard most of it. Overall the approach seems sound. A couple things I don't care for.

1) School construction/maintenance and teacher hiring is a local/state issue. If folks want to vote themselves into becoming a low tax hellhole why should the federal taxpayers cover for their negligence/shortsightedness?

2) Decreasing the payroll tax that funds Social Security and funding the shortfall out of income tax revenues is a shortsighted approach. I understand that it is an attempt to push the tax up the food chain but it only works if those up the food chain actually are taxed more to pay for it. Otherwise it is just adding to deficit spending. A better approach to lowering payroll tax rates would be to remove the cap on SS contributions and lower the rate.
Click to expand...

Point of clarification on your point #2. What I heard is that he wants to pay for the entire bill by adding its cost to the deficit reduction that the deficit commission must propose which in turn triggers automatic cuts if they fail. In other words, it would be covered by spending cuts, tax increases or some combination of the two, whatever the end result of the commission process. I didn't hear him saying he wants to "fund the shortfall out of income tax revenues" but maybe I missed that. I didn't hear the first 3 minutes of the speech.
 
Fern said:
I hope they give that some rigorous analysis.

If it does hurt home sales that may be a significant problem.

Fewer new homes means less rebound in employment.

Fewer sales of existing homes means weaker prices. It also means more foreclosures. It also means more trouble for derivatives/CDO's etc. Means more trouble banks, and Fanny/Freddie etc.

Fern
Click to expand...

To be clear on this, what he's proposed in the past is scaling back the deduction for the top two tax brackets to the 29% rate. I don't think it should be monkeyed with at all in this economy and given the state of the housing market. In fact, I think it's one of his worst ideas. Just wanted to clarify that he has never proposed to eliminate it.
 
shiner said:
I've been offering to buy you a one way ticket to anywhere you want, most recently Somalia since that is what you have said you want the U.S. to become, for at least a couple of years now. All you have to do is to earn it is never set foot back on U.S. soil again.
Click to expand...
I hear Costa Rica is nice this time of year and one can live very nicely on their SS check. It's got to be better than MA, Oklahoma or Kentucky.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Point of clarification on your point #2. What I heard is that he wants to pay for the entire bill by adding its cost to the deficit reduction that the deficit commission must propose which in turn triggers automatic cuts if they fail. In other words, it would be covered by spending cuts, tax increases or some combination of the two, whatever the end result of the commission process. I didn't hear him saying he wants to "fund the shortfall out of income tax revenues" but maybe I missed that. I didn't hear the first 3 minutes of the speech.
Click to expand...
The current reduction in payroll tax we are enjoying this year is paid for by shifting money from the general fund to the SS fund so that there is no loss of revenue shown on the SS balance sheet. So the money the SS fund would have collected had we not reduced payroll taxes is covered by additional borrowing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top