Thread: What is Obama's new jobs bill and what will it do?

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

Uh Rick Scarf is a breath away from mentioning the gold standard.

The simple solution to the entire economy is simply to end public trading of banks and provide a clear path for partnerizing large financial institutions. It's significantly more difficult to write-off a half billion in losses as a CEO when it comes out of your own pocket. The short-term solution is to limit banks from investing more than the employee-held market capitalization in securities and derivatives, and to lower the capital gains tax to offset the temporary selling pressure over the 5-10 years it would take to mandate such a standard.

I said something similar to this at some point in the past and you disagreed with me.

That said, I agree with you. I also agree with Scarf on Obama's stance in this whole things. The funny thing about Obama 'helping the middle class' is the fact that he isn't helping the middle class. In fact, I'm beginning to think that the economy won't be corrected any time soon. American politics has become so polar that neither party can view something like the economy objectively, so both sides will posture and appeal to their base with these stupid market manipulation bills to provide a long enough artificial improvement to get through another election cycle.

Originally Posted by Mr. E

American politics has become so polar that neither party can view something like the economy objectively, so both sides will posture and appeal to their base with these stupid market manipulation bills to provide a long enough artificial improvement to get through another election cycle.

To derail this thread even further (as though it were really going anywhere else), here's a blog post about social norms in congress that sheds a little bit of light on one of the reasons nothing gets done there.

A basic rundown is this: Newt Gingrich changed the face of the Republican party from being generally amiable to "opposing the Democrats wherever possible." "Wherever possible" rather quickly became "on every single fucking bill, vote or issue in Congress." As a result, things like filibustering, which had a bad rap due to it's link to opposing civil rights cases back in the day, are now common place. Secret holds are popping up all the time. It is also perfectly acceptable, now, to completely refuse to schedule votes on things you don't like.

While it seems acceptable (if you view politics as a game, or maybe a business, I don't know) to pull this shit now, the fact is that Congress cannot function without at least a modicum of cooperation. It doesn't mean everyone bends over backwards for anyone else, it means Congressmen need to sit the fuck down and do the actual mechanics of governing so something can get done rather than, say, stymie the other party by playing chicken with them using a debt-ceiling collapse as your weapon of choice. This is the simple heart of it: If both parties cooperate, sometimes bad things happen, everyone suffers, but generally good things happen, and everyone gets to go home happy. If either party refuses to even play the game (way to go, Mr. Caulfield), then everyone suffers all the time, because nothing gets done.

I rather enjoy the closing paragraph, so I'll quote it here and I'm done.

Originally Posted by ginandtacos

In a half-assed attempt at a counterpoint, Bill Bennett argues, as many duplicitous defenders of Republican obstructionism do, that this is somehow what the Founders intended. He points out that government was intended to move slowly and be deliberative. It's a shame no one can take the time to point out to Bennett the difference between a slow, deliberative legislative process and someone walking up to the gears with a wrench, his colleagues cheering him on as he grinds the process to a complete halt for no useful reason.