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

I could be a bad American or just a terrible human being because I have no idea how President Obama's new jobs bill will affect the nation. I'm looking at this link on CNN, and I see some great points especially the motivation to hire veterans such as myself. I've read a lot of opposition and a lot of support, but I'm not experienced or knowledgeable to understand the implications or sort the bias in this sort of thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/...tml?hpt=hp_bn2

I don't want to nod my head and say "Obama rules!", so can anyone here give me a schooling?

Temporary bandaids to perk up the economy for the next year or so, while ignoring the underlying causes. He'll probably get re-elected because he wants to help the teachers, firefighters, middle class, tax the rich their "fair share" etc. But he isn't making any attempt to get credit flowing again by looking at the system of capital reserve requirements or the fact there are only a handful of large banks anymore where these used to be dozens and dozens. Too much government tinkering and attempts by the Federal Reserve to devalue our dollar to boost exports is the real problem, because it leads to market uncertainty which causes investors to be weary of any long-term investing.
If it passes, things will tick up a little, artificially outside of the free market system, and he might just be re-elected because of it. If it doesn't pass because the Republicans block it, he will run on the Truman podium of a "do-nothing Congress", so really this works out ok for Obama either way, and you and I will just be deeper in the hole in a year or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

Temporary bandaids to perk up the economy for the next year or so, while ignoring the underlying causes. He'll probably get re-elected because he wants to help the teachers, firefighters, middle class, tax the rich their "fair share" etc. But he isn't making any attempt to get credit flowing again by looking at the system of capital reserve requirements or the fact there are only a handful of large banks anymore where these used to be dozens and dozens. Too much government tinkering and attempts by the Federal Reserve to devalue our dollar to boost exports is the real problem, because it leads to market uncertainty which causes investors to be weary of any long-term investing.
If it passes, things will tick up a little, artificially outside of the free market system, and he might just be re-elected because of it. If it doesn't pass because the Republicans block it, he will run on the Truman podium of a "do-nothing Congress", so really this works out ok for Obama either way, and you and I will just be deeper in the hole in a year or so.

---

hey quit being racist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

Temporary bandaids to perk up the economy for the next year or so, while ignoring the underlying causes. He'll probably get re-elected because he wants to help the teachers, firefighters, middle class, tax the rich their "fair share" etc. But he isn't making any attempt to get credit flowing again by looking at the system of capital reserve requirements or the fact there are only a handful of large banks anymore where these used to be dozens and dozens. Too much government tinkering and attempts by the Federal Reserve to devalue our dollar to boost exports is the real problem, because it leads to market uncertainty which causes investors to be weary of any long-term investing.
If it passes, things will tick up a little, artificially outside of the free market system, and he might just be re-elected because of it. If it doesn't pass because the Republicans block it, he will run on the Truman podium of a "do-nothing Congress", so really this works out ok for Obama either way, and you and I will just be deeper in the hole in a year or so.

---

Well, that's a good thing, right? To get re-elected because he helped out the middle class, supported education, and and emergency services. Sure, it is definitely suspicious. That is how the game is played, and with political commentators, online op-ed columnists, and blogs, the rules are transparent to pretty much everyone. I think what separates him from his predecessor is that it sounds reasonable because it applies to me and to a majority of Americans. Despite the top wealthy getting the shaft, it will help overall, but as you stated it won't cause a total paradigm shift in our economy. Just a step up. My opinion, a step in the right direction.

Warren Buffet agrees, but maybe he is crazy. He's definitely smart, but he definitely agrees that he and the other wealthy Americans are too rich. Tax the rich he says. Let the government take care of the people because the government is overall responsible to the people. From my understanding of Keynes economic theory, letting the big businesses and the wealthy get richer and richer will eventually see that as an investment that will trickle all the way down and create new opportunities. Well, people are greedy, and the faucet is broken.

Personally, I'm mixed on what the government should be and should not be involved in, and in a situation like this, I think the President is going in the right direction. If I were in the top 1% of wealth in this nation, maybe I'd be angry, but dammit, this is a democracy and at one time or the other you'll end up on the receiving end.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rickscarf

But he isn't making any attempt to get credit flowing again by looking at the system of capital reserve requirements

---

do what now?

Quote:

---

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 have absolutely no idea what any of that means or the implications if applied, but does that have anything to do with stock markets, speculators, and big corporations and their top leaders.

Quote:

---

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.

Mr e I dont support it but it is a simple solution.

It would be catastrophic for anyone I their late 50s or older. No amount of defensive assets would protect an individual investor against the selling pressure and it might actually burst a 2000 year gold bubble.

Not 2000 year gold bubble, the Bretton Woods agreement in the mid-1940s that pegged the value of gold started the bubble and it went crazy after Nixon removed gold altogether before France took all our gold reserves. The comparative buying value of a dollar has declined considerably since then. If a total correction would occur, which I'd argue would mirror the buying power of 1913 before the modern Federal Reserve, a dollar today would be worth about 2 or 3 cents back then. I am not for that, to be clear, that is just an extreme example of how little our dollar is worth these days.

The definition of a bubble is when an assets price has mindlessly exceeded even optimistic intrinsic valuation. For housing, it's when home are more expensive than the time adjusted value of all future cash flows (aka rent). For a stock, it's the time-adjusted value of the company's future earnings.

For gold, the intrinsic value is minuscule since it has almost no industrial application and it's value is rooted in senseless tradition and shininess. And yet gold continues to soar higher.

It's a bubble by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

It's a bubble by definition.

---

Currently, yes, it is a bubble. Not arguing there at all. But you said it was a 2000 year old bubble, and I'm saying it's more like a 60 year old bubble.

The intrinsic value as technological use or jewelry doesn't have anything to do with that, it is what people are willing to trade for it that makes gold, or dildos for that matter or anything else, a viable option for currency. It just happens that gold has been used throughout time because it best represents what we want in our money - relatively finite, pretty rare, portable and durable.

What you need to look at and consider is that gold DOES have value in the market place, and has for a very long time. In the early 1900s you could buy X amount of rice in an open market with an ounce of gold no problem, and in fact I bet in a private market you would still have no problem buying a sack of 100 lbs of rice for an ounce of gold :) (The seller would of course have the sweet end of that deal considering current spot prices) And that is even with the currency being illegal to use. (Yes, illegal). The size of that sack of rice you could buy for a price under current valuations would be much larger today than it used to be. Now consider the dollar and that same sack of rice. Back in the early 1900s, for $5 you could buy a fucking huge sack of rice. For $5 now you're lucky to get a 5 or 10 lb bag. The value of the dollar, and thus the buyer power, has decreased over time through inflation.

Thanks atmoscheer for leading me to completely derail this thread with crazy gold talk, but we both know you meant to do that. I think you have a secret boner for gold since you love hearing me talk about it so much. My apologies to MPR

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Mr. E, I'd recommend checking out Alan Greenspan's memoirs, "The Age of Turbulence", in it he talks about what coq got on about, calling it economic populism - where politicians do what the people want so they can get re-elected instead of doing what is actually best for the long-term outlook of the country. He talks about how that is a very very bad thing and has led to the demise of nations. That is just one small section of it, but knowing the interest you have in economics and politics, I'd highly recommend checking it out, it is a fascinating read.

Coq I didn't click the link but based at least in your paraphrase, the flip side of that is that bills are so convoluted and mispurposed nowadays because of the democratic policy of "I'll throw you a bone if you vote yes" that the republicans really don't have a choice in the matter.

I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the republicans or the system. I'm just saying that it goes both ways. In the '08 bailout bill we had the famous million dollar arrows for Indians clause sneaking through because of the flawed bargaining process. Generally, even if the intent of the bill is fantastic, the final product is so convoluted and full of bullshit that you're invariably voting for something you opposenand simultaneously against something you support. Again, the flaw is with the system as a whole, not the behavior of the two parties that dominate it... Though I agree that it's ludicrous to think the founding fathers intended this as "factions" were much maligned back in those days.

It's not even a matter of "I'll throw you a bone," it's deliberately fucking up everything as much as legally possible, all the time. I mean, I understand that there's competing views of how to run a country, but there's a difference between "I'm going to vote no" and "I'm not going to let this pass because, although I can't veto it, I can prevent it from ever getting voted on." Voting "no" exercises your views in a political field, your 1 view amongst all the others around you. Preventing the vote breaks the system by enabling your view to count for more than anyone else's. I understand this is what those in power want, but it prevents anything from getting done.

One of the things the article touched on that I didn't was the nature of how democratic governments function. Parliamentary systems provide governing parties with much more power than the opposition, so this kind of dickheadedness and bullshittery still works in that system - it's a balance of sorts. Congress functions much differently. It really does require the majority of the politicians there to cooperate, at least on a most basic level, otherwise the whole system gets so bogged down that nothing can be accomplished.

You're totally right about the bills thing, too.

I don't think the gold standard could be much of a fix or Ron Paul's ideas would make the world a better place. I think he is an amazing individual, and if more people were as diverse as him then he would probably make an okay leader. Other than that, I don't see him as a viable candidate to help our country now.

I don't think there are any Republican candidates that could represent my ideals and beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Frankly, I'm glad that states are making a mosaic patchwork of inconsistent immigration laws to instill fears of a Latino witch hunt in both legal and illegal immigrants.

This has freed up huge numbers of fruit picker jobs that no Americans are willing to do but the Latinos were nevertheless "stealing" from citizens.

Thus Obama's job bill has become moot anyway. Just look at all the berries rotting in the fields if you don't believe me

---

I don't know if I read an article in this thread or somewhere else, but I was reading about farmer's who reserved a portion of the day's daily hirings for unemployed American citizens. It was just one account of one farmer, but he did say that the day(s) he did that many, if not all, of the hired Americans complained the work was too hard for the wages they were offered and left the job. I thought it was ironic because if you really want something you'll endure whatever to make it happen, and at time right now where so many people are striving for opportunity and challenging the status quo and what not I felt that was a sad blight on the hopes and dreams I had for people and this country. I really hope that was just one bad isolated incident.


------------------

As for the jobs bill on which this thread was founded.

So over the course of the last couple of weeks the jobs bill passed the House, wanted to be taken apart, debated in the Senate, and killed by a good ol' fashion filibuster. Obama is still fighting to have the entire jobs bill passed, and he is still campaigning across the country for it. I really think it is brilliant. He's challenging Congress to find a better bill with independent (that is something for somebody to look into, eh?) expert review. So far, I've just seen and heard McCain and Cantor rebuffing him with nothing and GOP candidates speaking passionate rhetoric. I think Obama is brilliant, and I feel if he were elected to a 2nd term that is where he would truly shine. I'm really liking the jobs bill and I think it would help the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Pino Rage

...killed by a good ol' fashion filibuster.

---

Technically, it's a new-fashioned filibuster. Traditionally, filibusters involved you actually holding the floor for a few hours until you passed the deadline. Now, you just need to yell "FILIBUSTER!" and it has the same effect.

Except for, you know, actually making a personal sacrifice of some sort in favour of your cause.

I wonder if everything would still be filibustered if politicians were obligated to truly filibuster something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Technically, it's a new-fashioned filibuster. Traditionally, filibusters involved you actually holding the floor for a few hours until you passed the deadline. Now, you just need to yell "FILIBUSTER!" and it has the same effect.

Except for, you know, actually making a personal sacrifice of some sort in favour of your cause.

I wonder if everything would still be filibustered if politicians were obligated to truly filibuster something.

---

Of course things would... Nobody likes hearing themselves speak more than those gasbags