Obama economic plan aims for 2.5M new jobs by 2011

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Nov 22, 2008.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Obama economic plan aims for 2.5M new jobs by 2011

    By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer Will Lester, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama promoted an economic plan Saturday he said would create or save 2.5 million jobs by spending billions of dollars to rebuild roads and bridges and modernize schools while developing alternative energy sources and more efficient cars.

    "These aren't just steps to pull ourselves out of this immediate crisis. These are the long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long," Obama said in the weekly Democratic radio address.

    The goal is to get the ambitious plan quickly through Congress, with help from both parties, after Obama takes office Jan. 20. The plan, which envisions those new jobs by January 2011, is "big enough to meet the challenges we face," he said. The president-elect said he has asked his economic advisers to flesh out the recovery plan — one "big enough to meet the challenges we face. ... We'll be working out the details in the weeks ahead, but it will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy."

    The plan comes at a time that the economy is continuing a downward spiral after hundreds of billions have already been spent trying to stabilize markets and restore confidence — with little success so far.

    ...

    The Labor Department reported that claims for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level since July 1992, providing fresh evidence of the weakening job market.

    "We'll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels," Obama said. He also made a commitment to fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy technologies "that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead."

    - rest at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy
     
  2. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    2.5 million? Aw, why stop at that? Why not 5 million? 10 million? 20m...? All he has to do is say that, you know!
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I imagine that there have been enough studies done to know that if X amount of dollars are spent on infrastructure that it will result in X number of jobs.
     
  4. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0

    The problem with using infrasturcture spending as an economic stimulus is two fold.

    1.) It takes a long time - environmental studies, design, the bid process, etc. Years can pass between the allocation of funds by Congress and the first dollar paid for actual construction.

    2.) Infrastructure spending should be based on actual need - not as an economic stimulus. And there is always the added waste of handing out the construction dollars as pork. Or will all the protest over the bridge to no where not apply if it is Democrats wasting the money on equally pointless projects.

    Tax cuts provide a more immediate economic stimulus.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. There is no doubt that there is massive need for infrastructure spending, particularly to fix what is breaking down which will require little or no envirionmental studies since they already exist.

    2. I am all for tax cuts for the middle and working classes in this nation - the folks who really need a tax cut. I am not for wasting tax cuts on big corporations and the well off who don't need them.
     
  6. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    The problem with tax cuts is they won't help those who have lost their jobs. I think we're going to see unemployment like we haven't ever seen since WWII. I heard an estimate that if GM goes bankrupt that will mean a LOSS of 2.5 million jobs. This program would just be a break even.
     
  7. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tax cuts by definition go to those who pay taxes. Those who do not pay taxes, which are by all accounts those at the lower end of the spectrum, will not see/should not see a tax cut.

    As far as infrastructure spending not needing enviornmentla studies, etc., that's naive. Carter's Clinch River Reactor here saw EnStud on top of EnStud, and was a failure. French Broad river bridge project? Same thing. Pineville flood wall? Ditto. Wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to say what was said a year or two years earlier.

    Big Brother never has figured out how to be efficient. I doubt he ever will.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If GM and Ford are forced to liquidate I think we can kiss any great U.S. economic growth goodbye for years to come.
     
  9. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, they aren't contributing much to GDP, et.al., anyway. These companies desperately need reforming and retooling.
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would shoring up/repairing/replacing an existing bridge require new environmental studies? Why would repairing roads/highways/interstates require new environmental studies?
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's rather naive thinking.
     
  12. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    When taxes are cut for businesses and higher income taxpayers there is more money available for businesses to hire and for taxpayers to spend on things like cars and houses and electronics, etc. which in turn requires businesses to hire more employees.

    By any chance is that where Obama is getting his seemingly random 2.5 million jobs number.

    And won't that be a kick in the head for the UAW if the Democrats let all those union members lose their jobs after their dues monies went to getting Democrats elected?
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think they do require them necessarily. But they're always done with new projects due to the potential new "hazards"

    On those three projects I mentioned, the avg. delay thanks to new EPA replicated studies is measured in years. The CRBR was NEVER completed thanks to such. The Tri-State tunnel was ten years behind. I think the shortest was the Pineville wall at just over 2 years.
     
  14. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who knows but that's the way it goes.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is naive trickle down economic wrongheaded thinking such as that, plus the lack of regulation to control the excesses of capitalism, that have caused us to be in the economic crisis that we are in today.
     
  16. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    How so? You're going to argue that Ford & GM is a positive factor in GDP?
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it doesn't go that way.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the cars they produce. All of the products that their suppliers produce. Wake up, Tom. You're smarter than to make such a statement as that.
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe not where you live, but in the four states I've inhabited, all the Federal projects I've seen have been that way, regardless of the administration in place.
     
  20. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Repair work is new spending but it isn't a new project. You know that, Tom.
     

Share This Page

Loading...