Moody's: Obama jobs plan will create 1.9 million jobs

Do you think the govt could actually have a govt worker at $200 each?

When the govt is involved you know that it's at least 6 figures cost to have one well paid, taxpayer funded hack.........err govt worker.

 

sad but true, reps given

 

Exactly. It's all based upon a bunch of stupid Keynesian models that have no basis in empirical science. In engineering and physical terms, if these projections were for a moon landing, we'd probably end up at Mars...

 

Obama anything is pure leftist fantasy.

 

Hurting Obama is more important for them than helping to get jobs for Americans.
They will have nothing to do with anything that could improve the economy if it means hurting their chances to keep attacking Obama.

 

Such an analysis only makes sense if your *only* metric is "jobs created." As I pointed out, that's just silly.

He's not spending $447 billion merely to create 2 million jobs. He's coming up with way to invest government money -- infrastructure, education, etc. -- that also happen to have a big impact on employment.

Not if it's truly paid for.

But this brings up another interesting point. Interest rates are so low, the government is actually able to borrow money for a *negative* real interest rate.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...rest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=realyield

That means the interest the government pays on new debt is less than inflation. If it borrows $20,000 today, and pays back $25,000 in 10 years, that $25,000 is worth less, in real terms, than the $20,000 today. So it made money, in real terms.

If the government were smart, it would be borrowing as much money as it possibly could right now. Use it to pay off older, higher-interest debt; use it to fund infrastructure. Use it for stimulus. Whatever. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to invest heavily in our country -- and help restart the recovery -- at practically zero cost.

 

And they are waiting for the repeal of profit killing Barry Care, insane regulations that make creating jobs harder and more expensive. They are waiting for a climate that is a little less anti-success.

The money that they have under their mattresses now has already been taxed but if they put it into a business that is over burdened with government taxation and regulations it will be gone and nothing will have been created for our society.

With rich people spending about a third of the money spent on consumption taxing them will hurt the economy.

Giving money to bureaucrats to decide who to give the money to creates nothing at all.

 

who is "them"

who is "they"

how did obamacare and stimulation do? I look at the figures today and the answer is obvious. So, if it failed before, why think it will work this time?

A true Executive learns from one's mistakes and charts a different course. So, it appears that we lack a true Executive in the office, doesn't it?

 

Since the entire 'science' revolves around unfalsifiable hypotheses, shoot, even Krugman qualifies.

 

The entire amount is just jobs? Or does that include material to do those jobs. You know concrete, asphalt, tools.

 

we were losing nearly a million jobs a month in late 2008....

because of legislation that didnt exist yet?

lol thats funny

 

LOL...this is such a dumb debate.

We all know that if the Republican Congress fails to pass this, it will be they who are tossed unceremoniously out next year.
They're only chance it to pass it all and hope it fails...politically speaking.
If it works...then Obama get a second term, and the Republicans get a nice pat on the back.

Have a nice day...

 

hmmmm, so lemme get this straight. Your proposal is to borrow $14 Trillion to pay off our debt. We'd still be $14 Trillion in debt and then you'd also want to create more good paying, taxpayer funded govt jobs so you would also counsel to borrow even more? How about $6 Trillion so we are a cool $20 Trillion in debt.

But, let's use GM math for this

We owe $14 Trillion and the IOU is in our black pants. We put on the gray pants, borrow $14 Trillion, remove the check but leave the IOU, put on our black pants again and use the $14 Trillion check to pay off the debt. Ah, I get it, the debt is then satisfied much like what GM announced. What do we do with the gray pants because we own them and those pants owe $14 Trillion

 

You want to play dumb?
OK, knock yourself out.

 

No matter what conservatives believe, repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

Obamacare is a failure? It hasn't kicked in yet!

And the consensus economic view is that the stimulus did, indeed, work. Depression avoided; millions of jobs saved; economic recovery begun.

Has the recovery been as robust as we'd like? No. Is job creation where it should be? No.

But there are many, many factors that contribute to such an outcome. You can't just point to that and say "the stimulus failed."

Some people think the stimulus simply wasn't big enough. Some people think it just shows that the recession was much worse than we thought. Some people point out that the problems in the housing and financial sectors haven't finished working themselves out.

On its own terms -- when you compare where we are to where we were going without the stimulus -- the stimulus worked.

 

Aren't you a teacher?
You rag on wally world and mcD employees calling them d-bagger spongers. Is that nice?

 

but you see, your false liberal claims are the saem as asking me to prove a negative. We'll never know what would have happened without TARP, without the UAW bailout and wothout stimulation.

We'll never know what health insurance prices would have done without nancy and her big gavel because they've risen drastically since the law was rammed down our throats.

We'll never know what would happen to oil prices had moratoriums not been placed or permits made easier and more leases given.

But, what we do know is the state of the country right now and it's been under liberal control for a while with the senate and house since 2006 and all 3 for 2 years from 2008-2010.

We know having all those liberals have done nothing positive for the country. It's time for something new

 

Let's say we do that.

We borrow $20 trillion. We pay off $14 trillion in higher-interest debt, replacing it with debt that has an effective interest rate of zero.

Why is that a bad idea?

Then we borrow $6 trillion more, so now we have $20 trillion in debt with an effective interest rate of zero.

Guess what happens?

We get to pour $6 trillion into our economy. Invest in all sorts of things that will make us competitive far into the future.

What happens to our debt service?

Let's say the $14 trillion was borrowed at an average real rate of 4%. Let's assume an average loan period of 20 years.

To the loan calculator!
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/loan-calculator.aspx

Borrowing $14 trillion for 20 years at 4% results in an annual debt-service cost of just over $1 trillion a year. Over 20 years that adds up to slightly more than $20 trillion in total payments. Of that, we would have gotten to use $14 trillion. The rest is interest.

Or we could borrow $20 trillion at zero percent. Our debt service stays almost the same (actually, slightly less). Our total payments over the life of the loan is $20 trillion. And we would have gotten to use all $20 trillion, rather than wasting money on interest.

It's $6 trillion in *free money*. What sane person wouldn't do that?

The only thing that would make it a bad idea is if we then blew the $6 trillion on stupid crap, rather than using it for long-term investments in infrastructure and social capital (education, etc.) But from a purely financial perspective, it's a no-brainer.

 

Why is CNN Money reporting that this package could create 1 million jobs? That's a huge discrepancy, there is no way in hell they should pass anything quickly if we have such variances being reported.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/09/news/economy/obama_jobs_plan_impact/index.htm?iid=HP_LN

 

news flash

for example, the bank of China has a note to us for $10 Trillion at 3%. Why would I refiance you to 1% ? Do you forget that we've been downgraded as well?

Hypotheticals are nice but at some point, even liberals must get back to reality. So, you support the Joe Biden school of economics where must go deeper into debt to get out of debt?

 

because they didn't get the memo from Valerie

 

I perked up several times while listening, and some of what our fearless leader was saying did make sense.
Its also welcome to read some positive opinions (and that is all they are), because, for lack of better phrasing, part of our economic woes may indeed be because of all the negativity we so often hear and read about.
But what I didn't hear from the President was a concrete and surefire strategy to bring all this wishful thinking to fruition. Plans and proposals are just that.
Everyone can grandstand and give a great speech, one btw that sounded very much like a campaign speech, lacking in sincerity, and most can articulate attention getting phrases, esp in a time when a nation is getting increasingly desperate.
But we had all that. We had the ideas, the hope, and well intended plans, but none have made a dent in job creation, not long term at least.
But I applaud Obama for recognizing that we have too many restrictions, and too much competition overseas, and that those competitors to not play a fair game. Yes, he realizes at least that much.
I just hope he makes something happen, and soon.

 

Perhaps, but if the discrepancy was off by +/- 100k jobs I could accept that, but this discrepancy is 900k jobs. We haven't even see the plan and already they are cooking the books.

 

It's true. It's tougher to prove what might have been.

What we can do, though, is look at trend lines. The economy began recovering soon after the stimulus started kicking in. And the recovery was dramatic -- from losing 700,000 jobs a month to creating 100,000 jobs a month.

Griping that jobs aren't being created fast enough is *far* better than watching them disappear at a frightening pace.

They were rising drastically before. That's *why* everyone agreed we needed to do something about health insurance prices. And since Obamacare hasn't kicked in yet, you can't blame it for prices continuing to rise in the meantime.

In the long term, we're going to get to see the trend line on health care costs. What they were doing before Obamacare took effect, what they were projected to do without Obamacare, and what they actually did.

Of course, we'll also have to keep in mind that Republicans forced Democrats to strip out nearly all the effective cost-containment measures, and are doing their best to stymie the rest (like the health-care exchanges and the individual mandate). So Obamacare became more of a "universal coverage" bill than a cost-containment bill. So when judging the bill, be sure to judge it on what is is, not on what it hoped to be when it first started out.

Oh, that one's easy. Oil is a global market. Even if we removed all restrictions and said "drill baby drill", it would make hardly a dent in the global supply, and thus hardly a dent in prices -- particularly because OPEC could be counted on to reduce output, if necessary, to keep prices at their preferred level. The most optimistic scenarios for drilling predict saving no more than a few cents a gallon for a decade or so.

Were the liberals allowed to do as they pleased? No. I seem to recall Senate Republicans being extremely obstructionist. I seem to recall them taking advantage of Obama's efforts to reach across the aisle and seek GOP buy-in -- but not to cooperate; they used it to delay, weaken and kill everything they could.

Maybe, if the Senate didn't require a 2/3 majority for most legislation, you could lay it all at the Dems' feet. But you can't. What happened in the first two years of Obama's term was far from a liberal ideal.

 

What you gotta understand is that if a 10 percent unemployment rate is enough to keep Obama from being re-elected, the Republicans are down with it. Obama's plan will never get off the ground.