Obama's Job Bill -Why is this Controversial?

I reposted this comment under a new title, because I wanted more people to see it -and perhaps respond to it:

I listened to Obama's speech re: his proposed jobs legislation the other day, and was shocked by two things: 1. His pleading tone -Plenty of Republicans and wealthy elites in the U.S. despised F.D.R. and his New Deal, but I never seem to remember Roosevelt literally begging people to put themselves and their own children before millionaires and billionaires in supportng legislation that is -to my mind- clearly in the interest of about 95% of the population. 2. It was somehow frightening to hear even the President of the United States talk about how children are not going to school, and that desperately needed teachers have been laid off because of the lack of adequate funding available in state budgets. -What's next, the President's State of the Union Address on how to find the nearest Tent City and how to put out a raging fire without the assistance of a Fire Dept.? (The current situation in the U.S. appears more surreal with every passing day.)

 

I find it interesting that this topic was immediately moved to a new forum, while comments in threads dealing with the August riots in England or the Majority Government of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper were not considered to be "political" and have remained posted in the Free Fire Zone main forum for months.

What gives?

 

This post deals with ongoing American political situations, including a bill which has been proposed but not yet voted up or down. That is what gives, it isn't developing news like a riot (s), and I believe the Stephen Harper posts perhaps should have been moved, but they were also "done deals" not pending.

This was moved by myself as it is clearly of an ongoing political tone concerning American politics and will (or could) get heated and opinionated.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Clint.

Now, would anyone care to address my comment? -I am genuinely interested in hearing your opinions on this subject.

 

The job bill is not law yet, just a bill. It will take much debate and discussion, tweaking and wreaking before it will (or will not) become law. And even if they make all the lights and push it through, it will take a year or two (like Obamacare) before it is brought to a vote. Also, I haven't taken the proper time and effort to study the proposal to form an educated opinion just yet.There will be plenty to come by soon enough to open dialogue on the matter. Stay tuned.

 

View attachment 14187

Bumper sticker

 

I always maintained on Bama's election that if this man did not deliver most of that which he promised, there were going to be a great many genuinely browned off American grass roots voters who would turn on this administration with the same invective as they had idealism when it all began.

I hope the Obama presidencey has taught people one thing about politicians. They are all LIARS, no matter what circumstances they are elected under. Anyone who comes to office on a platform of "Change" will be shunted out just as quickley when it becomes blindingly obvious to all that it is not the job of the Chief to enact policy for change....

His job is to maintain the status quo. He is the ENEMY of change.

When you guys work this one out as a body politic, you may have some kind of chance of putting a President like this one into some sort of perspective.

Meantime, told you so......

 

As far as the told you so...never mind.
The man is trying to right a tipping ship. I for one, hope to hell he is successful. I voted for him, and I have not had one solid "that's why" reason since. I hope he creates jobs....I wish he could take us back in time and not lose the jobs we lost due to our own crazy economical ego. Look at WWII....we built the greatest military the world has ever seen, withing a couple years. Technology and innovations included. That didn't go away. What the hell...I remember my dad having to choose between going to work and walking the picket line because of a .75 an hour raise. He chose to work and was called a scab. For 3/4 of a dollar....guys he worked with for 20 plus years were singling him out. Union. So many praise them. I blame them. Create jobs, don't create reasons for already rich groups to clean more plates.

 

Are the right kind of jobs going to be created? Seems to me that many of the jobs to be created are of the transitory type, mostly in construction, and once those projects are finished, we're back to square one. Of course, this will be some 5 - 10 years down the road, and when the problem rears it's ugly head again, Obama will be out of office.

On the flip side, given the haggling over the "debt ceiling" earlier this year, how is lumping on another 1/2 Trillion dollars in debt going to help that situation? Obama's proposals for paying for his new pet project, should be going towards lowering the debt, instead of transitory jobs that will be gone in 5 to 10 years.

 

By doing the equivalent of pumping water into the ship? According to the Obama administration's own projections, by the end of his 4-year term he will have increased the national debt by $6.5 Trillion -- that's more than Clinton's 2nd term and all 8-years of G. W. Bush -- combined. Don't count on politicians to create jobs. The only jobs they can create are government jobs. Government jobs are a drain on the economy. After all, where do they get the money to pay the employees? From taxpayers -- you and me. The only way jobs are going to be created is for the government to quit tying millstones around the necks of businesses and entrepreneurs. Then they will start new businesses and expand existing businesses, thus creating real jobs and growing the economy. Playing the political envy game of "soak the rich" might make some folks feel better, but it will only discourage economic growth.

 

I was going to point out the same idea out, but TDT did it quite well enough. The government can only create a business friendly environment and get the hell out of the way. This is what is called a "laissez faire" attitude here in Louisiana. Laissez faire is an economic theory from the 18th century that is strongly opposed to any government intervention in business affairs, and is sometimes referred to as "let it be economics." It worked fine during the colonial era until the US bought Louisiana. Then the federal government came in and got it's grubby fingers in everything, fonking up the works something fierce.

 

There are some interesting -and diverse- opinions offered here. -Thank you gentlemen.

Here are a couple of additional thoughts:

While I agree that capitalism as an economic system is brilliant at creating wealth, encouraging risk, innovation, etc., it historically has done a very poor job of distributing the benefits of that wealth....Hence the need for government regulation, progressive taxation, and delivery of services through state bureaucracy. (Canada was the ONLY member of the G20 that didn't experience a bank failure in the economic turbulence of 2008 because our banking system is highly regulated by the government, rather than left to the vagaries of laissez faire capitalist theory.) I am a Canadian socialist, and no doubt that influences my perceptions of the current situation in the United States, but -to my mind- a significant part of what's created this economic disaster in the U.S. is too little regulation -especially of banks and other lending institutions- not too much government interference.

I also do not understand why the crumbling American middle class -and it's crumbling before my eyes just as surely as your bridges, roads, and schools are crumbling- would jealously guard the priviledges of millionaires and billionaires, who increasing contribute very little to the economy when it comes to employing middle and working class American citizens. And why would middle and working class Americans exhibit anti-union sentiments? (It was organized labour that brought you such nefarious schemes as a guaranteed wage, guaranteed hours of work, health and safety regulations in the workplace, etc.) I still think there's a great deal of truth to what American novelist John Steinbeck said in the mid 1930s: America is the only country in the world that has no working class, no proletariat. Instead, it boasts an underclass of "embarassed millionaires" who've deluded themselves into believing that some day, they'll be rich...and on those grounds they jealously defend the privileges of the wealthy, rather than promote agendas that would actually improve the quality of their own lives.

For those of you who appear to believe that only the private sector can create meaningful, productive, beneficial jobs, what about teachers, police officers, fire fighters, soldiers in the Armed Forces, etc.? Do you honestly feel that these public service jobs should somehow be privatized, and operated in such a way as to turn a profit?
I do not understand the fear -sometimes bordering on paranoia- that some Americans seem to have regarding "big government." -Don't they realize that our modern, extremely complex technological societies can only function as a result of the imput of sophisticated, state-regulated bureaucracies? And that a libertarian society is a pipe dream that would lead inevitably to the collapse of civilization? (Is each "rugged individualist" living in a city like New York or Los Angeles supposed to somehow regulate their own personal plumbed-in water supply? Maintain their own highways? Build their own houses, and condos, and skyscrapers? Create and maintain their own telecommunication systems?-I look forward to seeing the members of the local Ayn Rand Society out with wheelbarrows and asphalt, filling the potholes in their own personal stretches of highway....The very idea is, of course, ridiculous.)

I also cannot comprehend the almost pathological hatred of paying taxes that is exhibited by many Americans. (It was the great U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes who said famously: "I don't mind paying taxes, they buy me civilization.")

Well, that's my two cents.

As I've said here elsewhere, my heart goes out to the millions of middle and working class Americans who are suffering through the opening phase of a second Great Depression. (I don't believe for a minute that what's happening re: the U.S. economy today is a "temporary downturn" or a "minor market fluxuation.") When your own President addresses the nation and literally begs people to vote for funds to open schools and hire teachers so that American children can acquire basic skills in numeracy and literacy, something is seriously wrong....The train has, in fact, gone off the rails.

-Believe me, it gives me nothing but displeasure and sadness to write any of this.

 

Maybe the reason you don't fully understand what is going on here is in your first sentence of the second paragraph above when you state that capitalism has historically done a very poor job of distributing the benefits of wealth. That's not the job of capitalism. Capitalism is all about working, business, commerce, etc. Socialism is when segments of the population sits on their arses and expects a free ride. Socialism does not work. Eventually you will run out of other people's money to tax and re-distribute. You spoke of government creating jobs like police, firemen, teachers, military, etc. There's just so many of those jobs to go around. Everyone can't wear a uniform or teach. And we have enough state regulated bureaucracies to make your head spin right now thank you very much. So, government's best job is to create a healthy working environment and let the private sector work and create jobs. Socialism might work for you in Canada, but there are different dynamics in play here than up there. What's your tax rate nowadays?

 

John, thank you for your thoughtful and measured response. I appreciate the fact that you didn't offer a pointless diatribe in response as some on the extremes of the Left and Right have a tendency to do. I also appreciate you noting that your view of things is affected by your socialism. Of course, that is true for all of us. Since, as you acknowledged, you are a socialist and I am not, we are not going to change each other's mind.

Having said all that, I find it necessary to point out some false assumptions in your response.

1) The opposite of "big government" is not "no government". It is "limited government". The purpose of the US Constitution was not to delineate our Rights. It's purpose was to limit the size and scope of the Federal Government. There are legitimate functions of the Federal Government, but redistribution of wealth is not one of them, at least it's not supposed to be (in the USA, that is).

2) To be for limited government is not to be for big business and the super rich. They can afford the onerous income taxes and regulation of an overreaching government that crush and snuff out small businesses. That's why we see Rupert Murdoch calling for more income taxes on the "wealthy", when he knows full well that he won't pay a single dime extra in taxes, unlike the small business owners whose businesses pay income taxes per the individual tax schedules. Big business is in bed with big government and uses it to undermine their biggest competition, entrepreneurs and small businesses.

3) As for unions, most of the union membership in the USA are government employee unions. Unions were originally started to combat horrible working conditions that, I think we can all agree, were reprehensible. However, today they have evolved into left-wing political machines. They are more about getting "a bigger piece of the financial pie" than they are about safe working conditions. Bob Dylan said it best: "Sundown on the union. It was made in the USA. It sure was a good idea until greed got in the way."

4) Teachers, police, fire fighters, water & sewer supply, most highways & streets are all functions that belong to State/Local governments not the Federal government. Remember, we're not anti-government. We're for the proper role of government, not the absence of it.

Well, John, we may not agree, but perhaps we will understand each other better. At least, that is my hope. Cheers! :cheers:


Note: I should have checked before adding this long post. Didn't see A-58's response. I guess a little overlap is okay so will leave mine as is.

 

I like yours better.

 

This seems to be somewhat incorrect as per the debt and deficit. The only way out of this quagmire is to create a "need" for the products, the only way to create a need is put money in people's pockets with either federal money (unemployment checks), or jobs. Each dollar spent in unemployment returns nearly 1.60 in the economic system. That is because each one buys stuff people need, and pays for others to provide that good, i.e. groceries, clothes, housing.

As per what the Obama plan has done in the area of debt and deficit, let's look at the facts as published by the New York Times, not the most "Obama friendly" newspaper.

Goto:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1

 

Thank you TD-Tommy 776 for your thoughtful and measured response. -We come from different countries, with different histories and political traditions, so it's perhaps natural that we wouldn't necessarily see eye to eye on the role of government in society...but that's fine. We can agree to disagree and still engage in a civilized discourse.

I have to say that I found your first two points of clarification to be excellent, explaining that "the opposite of big government is not no government," and that "to be for limited government is not to be for big business and the super rich."

Your third point, about the greed of labour unions, I cannot support...even though you quote one of my musical heroes -Bob Dylan- in presenting your argument. ;-) -I make no claim for the perfection of unions, any more than I would declare sacrosanct any other institution created by human beings; nevertheless, I believe that organized labour remains the best -and perhaps only-way that the working class has of weilding power in the marketplace.

As far as Ace 58s comments go -"Socialism does not work. Socialism is when segments of the population sits on their arse and expects a free ride" - I beg to differ.

Canada, though far from perfect, is a vibrant social democracy -what you might call a "socialist" society- and I, for one thank my personal god that I was born in this country. Here's one anecdote -I could offer dozens- that explains my gratitude:

Two and a half years ago, my wife almost lost her foot in a car accident. She was flown to a hospital where she was treated by a team of specialists, receiving two operations over a period of six months, that saved both her leg and her foot. She was hospitalized for about a month total, received a bevy of anti-inflammatory, not to mention pain-killing pharmaceuticals, and then embarked on a program of physical rehabilitation that lasted for more than a year.

What do you think this heart-rending disaster cost me financially? -$50.00 (That was the non-refundable deposit paid to the company I rented a wheel chair from.)

In the United States -and I have this on the authority of a group of physicians, including a specialist who treated my wife- I would have been left with a bill of somewhere in the neighborhood of $750,000.00

If "socialism doesn't work" may it go on not working for me, my family, and friends, for as long as I live.

Cheers, gentlemen.

And here's a Dylan quote for you, Tommy, that makes me think of the current, deplorable state of the U.S.: "Georgia Sam, he had a bloody nose. The welfare department wouldn't give him no clothes. He asked Poor Howard, "Where can I go?" Howard said: " There's only one place I know." Sam said, "Tell me quick man, I got to run." Howard just pointed with his gun, and said, "That way, down Highway 61."" ;-)

 

I'm glad that socialism works so well up there, and also I pleased that you like it so much, but y'all can keep it. I've always worked for what I have and I'll continue to work for what I want. It's a different type of socialism we have here. The have-nots (who choose not to work, who are perfectly able but just not willing to do so) sit on their arses and with outstretched hands saying "gimme gimme gimme" while the haves (who have to work) go to work to provide for them. Not a great system, but it's ours. If the US was such a bad place, then why are millions of people trying to get here?

 

I won't get [fully] involved in this argument, but I'll say as one of many Canadians that doesn't like socialism, that John's comments don't reflect the views of all Canadians per say. Just look at the most recent election results.

There are many things wrong with our system. The first that comes to mind is our health care system. Its excellent if you have a "common" or "standard" ailment (ie: heart problems, require transplants), but anything remotely "exotic" or "unknown" will result in the person being largely ignored. Due to government funding, it isn't "economical" to conduct research or expand the system to deal with areas that only deal with small percents of the population. Government funding only goes so far. An example of this is lyme disease - Canadian doctors won't even admit that it exists, and most won't even attempt to treat it. Its a sad fact, but you can't say that this isn't true because several of the people I know have encountered this. On the other hand, I know several people who have had heart problems or transplants that had excellent service. Its hit-or-miss in the Canadian health care system -- either you get good service, or you don't get any at all.

I like our country, and it would take a lot to convince me to move elsewhere, but there are many things that need improvement.