http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...iness_newsreel

You want a plan? Help these companies stay afloat like we did Banks and auto companies. These are real jobs at risk but I guess this wouldnt be very popular among progressives.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...atestHeadlines

So the 120k "govt" jobs lost here don't matter when we can hire "community" workers?

Throwing this out...


The Fed is going to buy some of the mortgages from the banks and in turn they will ease the f. up on credit.

So ... where's the conservative jobs plan?

Anyone?

Maybe another tax cut? And another capitals gains deduction. And a foreign income tax holiday!

That would make corporations (whoops, "Job Creators") feel more secure, so they will hire and expand, to serve a demand that is no longer there, because the jobs they shifted overseas have left the American middle class with no money to spend on consumerism.

Damn. Pyramid schemes are like that.

Yes, if only the wealthiest had more money, on top of the record 1.2 trillion they are sitting upon and keeping out of the economy, they would feel confident enough to create jobs and grow, in spite of there being no demand possible.

Presuming economic growth in a consumer vacuum ... trickle-down Reaganomics at it's best.

Who are the stupid ones again?

Yes, temporary jobs, for 1-3 years, that leaves tangible results, that produce ... consumers.

When faced with legitimate questions you come up with rhetoric.
So what happens in 1-3 years to these people? Oh thats right we give them 99 more weeks of unemployment benefits? Who pays for that? Creating ridiclous temporary jobs for community "helpers" and 16 year olds as a way to grow the economy?

Yeah just like food stamps were great economic stimulus...

just because she produced a plan doesn't mean it's necessarily a good one. is it a start? sure. but just because you and dailykos both call it awesome, doesn't mean it really is.

if it's temporary, where does the tax money collected in future years go? or is that a temporary tax as well? somehow, i doubt it. all the teachers, firemen, etc-who pays for them after the 1-3 years? more pushed on the states in a few years time, along with obamacare, to be trumpeted as savings? 50k per job is the average-how does that work out specifically, since many of the jobs are for summer help, or temp jobs? that's the main problem with jobs created by the govt, paid for by tax payers-there's no generation of profits from sales, etc. it's not a private sector job that sustains itself.
like i said, an idea. a start. awesome??? not so much.

don't know why they didn't already. bailed out insurance co's, gm...but one real issue seems to be a continuing credit crunch. this action would certainly ease that.

Unlike your answer? "It's stupid!" [ no explaination ]

Geeshus, read the damn article, read the entire detail of the suggestion itself on the website, and get remotely accurate. The vast majority of the jobs are not "ridiculous temporary jobs for 16 year olds"

Oh, wait - just skip that for your own typical right-wing knee-jerk angry rhetoric.

Glad you can determine that by creating a list of good questions, then dismissing any possible answers out of hand with no investigation, assuming you won't like the answers.

You could try reading the entire bill and investigating it further, too, as no, "most of the jobs" are not summer help, temp jobs.

So let's see ... the sum of the brilliant and in-depth political opinion on the pros and cons of this suggested jobs bill mostly boils down to, "I don't like what I superficially skimmed and misinterpreted about it on an internet list quoting a couple of excerpts from a newspaper article, and I don't like Democrats, so it sucks!"

Yes, let's continue follow the brilliant Republican Tea Party economic policy where the deficit ceiling raise is threatened! Yeah, that just got us downgraded to AA+, but that's Obama's fault.

Or let's pretend trickle-down economics worked during the past 40 years, in spite of factual evidence to the contrary, and didn't greatly help get us to the financial disaster we're at now.

No wonder this country is so unbelievably messed up. One political party is determined to do no work to help this country, but just to bring the other party down, and they have already willingly sacrificed this country to get there. And have gleefully said they'd do it again.

just because one sees flaws in the plan doesn't mean one is a tea party member. :rolleyes: that's overly simplistic, don't you think? the reason everyone apparently sees these as 'temporary' is even you say the funding for all of it is temporary, hence the discussion about temporary jobs.

as for the bolded-you think others are so quick to say that, since you're so quick to say it's from a democrat, it's great, right? typical of people to judge others by their own quirks and ways of thinking. like i said, the plan is a start-i didn't dismiss it out of hand. i was hoping for more input, instead of the usual. my fault for thinking i'd get answers i suppose.

so....you can't answer my good questions, you just dismiss the post...by accusing me of dismissing the subject. lol
you're the one on here bringing up these awesome ideas, why do you throw in the towel so easily?

I think it's overly simplistic to not bother to really look at the plan, or try and find out the details and what the intent is, thus dismissing it out of hand because one has jumped to the false impression that most or even a majority of the jobs are superficial teenaged jobs.

No. The majority of the jobs are skilled, leave tangible hard results (repair, construction, teaching) and will possibly require some retraining of the 99 weekers (which is addressed in the plan)

Your tax question is a good one.

i read the article listed above, as well as a few others yesterday, trying to find more info. so far, unsuccessful in finding any real details. and like i said, it's all well and good to say hire more fire, police, teachers..but as has been asked, what happens in a couple of years? if it's not permanent funding, it's not a good plan imo, especially when one wonders where the future tax goes. haven't seen details on that either.

I saw more detail, but can't remember if I saw it on the Progressive Caucus website, or Schakowsky's website ... it's not a bill yet, it's a plan, there are certainly not well-fleshed out areas.

But no, the vast majority of jobs are not superficial, temporary make work jobs.

Are they "not permanent" construction jobs, etc? Yes. But they are good, "hard" and needed jobs, not created out of thin air jobs. They will leave permanent benefits.

(I read the other day where most of the eastern logging industry of today is greatly dependent upon trees planted during FDR WPA projects)


But the government doesn't want to permanently hire hundreds of thousands of new workers. That would be crazy. And GOP-TV (Faux news) would call that a "socialist, communist takeover"

The whole point of stimulus and WPA type deals is to get the economy through a rough patch without totally cratering out. Right now, the last of the original stimulus is gone, on the local levels. The last QEII is gone. The economy is reacting partially to that (although greatly to Europe, and alot due to automated computer buy-sell programs - look at the daily swing chart)

The states are laying off teachers, firefighters, policemen, can't do country and state road repairs, etc.

The government picks this tab up temporarily, and the cash put back into the local economy, and the taxes, local and federal, keeps the locals afloat so hopefully they can go back to where they were in the future, picking up the costs of some of the permanent jobs.

Remember 1937? We are repeating the mistakes of the Depression. Hoover tried some light stimulus things (like the first stimulus package we had), then the economy had an anemic slow growth (just like we had) - then FDR and everyone became deficit crazy (like we are right now) then the economy tanked in the Depression due to the deficit hawks.

You don't worry about long-term debt during a recession/depression. You worry about your immediate problem, joblessness and anemic financial picture.

You carry the debt - notice that our interest rates have never been lower - while throwing that cheap, cheap money into the economy to keep it afloat.

And as interest rates are so low now, better the government borrows the money to fix all our federal highways - leaving better infrastructure while putting people to work - than doing it more expensively in the future (and killing more people while bridges just fall down)

What happens when these 1-3 year jobs expire? Hopefully the economy will carry it strongly. It's like giving you IV fluids while you can't eat or drink due to GI tract surgery - after a few days, you're healed enough that you can take that over yourself. The fluids are not permanent, they are temporary to keep you alive.

And the increased taxes will then go to paying down the deficit. Jobs first, stimulus first, long-term debt later when the economy is strong. That's exactly the plan that has worked in the past in this country, most recently during the Clinton years.

"trickle down" has not worked. In fact, in the face of 10 years of massive tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts, the economy lost hundreds of thousands of jobs and went into recession.

Tax cuts to job "creators" does not work to stimulate an economy.

For example, you can say the temporary census hiring was only "temporary", but it made a noticable blip in the unemployment numbers for several months, and during those months people were not unemployed and starving. Yes, the jobs were over, and they had to go back to unemployment - or nothing - but temporary help isn't worse than no help at all, it's better than starving.

These are real people we are talking about - when you don't have money, when you are bottomed out, you literally yes, can't buy food and you starve or become homeless, etc.

We don't do "stimulus" to "help the economy", we do it to keep our fellow citizens alive.

Explanation? What about asking who pays for these jobs when the fed money runs out? Who bears the brunt of the costs of the jobs moving forward? Or is this a half-law too to be figured out at a later date?

No the jobs are janitors, tree huggers, "work study", fix it men, and the nebulous "community" workers.

Yeah this sounds like a sustainable plan to turn the economy around.

A job isnt something that just is "created" and sustained because people don't have one. There has to be a purpose AND there has to be a way to pay for them. The purpose given may be admirable (well as long as you ignore the political implications of those being "given" jobs) but there is no way to sustain these jobs unless there is unlimited federal money (not happening) or the states/local govts will have these expenses thrust upon them at a time they can least afford them. And if these jobs are simply stopgap, temporary jobs are these same people going to return to the gov't payroll in the form of unemployment payments?

There aren't enough taxpayers. It's that simple. Let's tax the 50% of Americans not paying income tax before we start talking about raising taxes on the rich. This woman's plan says it all in the title. PROGRESSIVE. That is exactly why we were downgraded. The Tea Party didn't spend(THEN borrow) Trillions in the last few years. Where is this money going to come from? Oh that's right , the "RICH"! The Govt will just confiscate it.

thats what i don't like about these ideas....raise taxes to go with a supposed good idea, but the good idea part only gets that funding for a bit...the tax part remains, but where does the money go?? that's the main reason why many of us are hesitant to back any tax increas....er, revenue enhancements. we recognize things need paid for, but we don't want what seems to always happen..an influx of cash only seems to bring what? added spending, with no debt reduction.

i think the rich can give bit more, but i do agree that there are too many who pay zero...yet they somehow still manage to get a big 'refund' come spring via the eitc...

We all can agree that schools in need of repair and cleaning should be fixed and cleaned. I presume parents of children attending those schools in need of repair and cleaning would be even more in agreement.

So instead of throwing taxpayer money at the problem as some sort of stage production of the musical Jobs have these parents and neighborhood residents volunteer and fix/clean their own childrens' schools. Of course any parent who is already paid (subsidized) by the government would be required to volunteer.

After all isn't it all about the children? How can it fail? :)

^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U