Bob Herbert: "Obama's problem is that he did not make job creation the nation's highest priority"

[Better Believe It]

Op-Ed Columnist
Fire and Imagination
By BOB HERBERT
August 13, 2010

This would be a good time for the Obama crowd to put aside its concern about the absence of giddiness among liberals and re-examine what it might do to improve what is fast becoming a depressing state of affairs.

Mr. Obama’s problem — and the nation’s — is that in the midst of the terrible economic turmoil that the country was in when he took office, he did not make full employment, meaning job creation in both the short and the long term, the nation’s absolute highest priority.

Besides responding to the nation’s greatest need, job creation would have been the one issue most likely to bolster Mr. Obama’s efforts to bring people of different political persuasions together. In the early months of 2009, with job losses soaring past a half-million a month and the country desperate for bold, creative leadership, the president had an opportunity to rally the nation behind an enormous “rebuild America” effort.

Such an effort, properly conceived, would have put millions to work overhauling the nation’s infrastructure, rebuilding our ports and transportation facilities to 21st-century standards, establishing a Manhattan Project-like quest for a brave new world of clean energy, and so on.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/opinion/14herbert.html?ref=bobherbert

[steve2470]

1. k and r nt

[Demeter]

25. Obama's Problem Is He Didn't Make PEOPLE His Highest Priority

the Corporations have enough money to take care of themselves. If they don't, they are doomed to extinction.

[Donnachaidh]

46. sure he did -- WEALTHY *people* got him jumping through hoops from the git go

The rest of us -- ehhh.. Just shake some hands at photo-ops on beaches, phony up some school programs while stealing the money for it from the poor. You know -- bait and switch promises.... :eyes:

Basically, *hope* only came packaged with a bow tie to those who could make campaign donations. :shrug:

[Demeter]

66. At That Level of $$$ They Aren't PEOPLE Any More

They are Corporations

[Donnachaidh]

74. sure they are -- elitist people who write checks for campaigns

If they were corporations, they couldn't write those checks to candidates that stated they didn't take corporate money, could they?

[OhioChick]

2. K&R n/t

[emilyg]

16. Raise you a K/R

[ProSense]

3. "If the Republicans had balked, and they would have,"

"It would have taken fire and imagination, but the public was poised to respond to bold leadership. If the Republicans had balked, and they would have, the president had the option of taking his case to the people, as Truman did in his great underdog campaign of 1948."

Why is this Truman comparison springing up?

If the Republicans had balked, the President could have blamed them in 2012?

[Marr]

5. No, he could've made their opposition so politically unpopular,

that many would reconsider. I believe it's called leadership.

[ProSense]

6. You mean like they did

with the aid bill for states? Anger and ridicule from Republican voters didn't change their votes.

As for the jobs, click the image below for the jobs impact of legislation passed. It may not have been enough, but it stemmed the losses and put the country back into positive territory, which is a lot better than just complaining about Republicans.

On edit: Herbert also wrote about a jobs program that worked. Unfortunately, it needs to be extended, expanded and funded.

[Marr]

9. If we can both agree that it wasn't enough, where is the argument?

If these compromised, questionable half-measures result in electoral losses and no chance to do ever do "enough", how can you possibly interpret that as a victory?

[ProSense]

12. Really?

"You push for something meaningful. If you get it, you run on that success. If you don't, you know who to blame."

Herbert has no doubt Republicans would have balked, he's correct. You seem to believe that if they did, blame would be a virtuous position.

He pushed for more and got what he got. That is the success he will run on, and the blame goes to Republicans who failed to support any of these measures.

[pattmarty]

45. You'd be surprised what rose colored glasses really do. That and.......

........that huge circular firing squad of mutual admiration. We NEEDED an FDR, what we GOT was a black Bill Clinton.

[Knight Hawk]

122. 100%

That is how correct you are.Clinton,either one,though in my opinion would be doing better.A very good chance we will lose the House in November .Then what?

[tblue]

125. For all his flaws, I miss Bill.

I don't really know if Hillary would be better than Obama. I think they're more or less equal. Clinton understood that little thing called LEADERSHIP. Would be nice to have some in the White House.

[AlbertCat]

69. If the Republicans had balked....

.... somebody would have to REPORT it or the people would know nothing about it.

Don't forget, there is no Liberal Media, but there is plenty of Conservative media these day. A whole network devoted to it and misinformation.

Obama has been timid, I concur. But when he does get the houses of Congress to get something done, it is barely reported, or reported in a "when did you stop beating your wife" way.

[hay rick]

102. The perils of democracy.

We are living in an era in which our democracy is failing in the sense that our elected representatives are no longer willing or able to act in the best interests of the people. The constituency that they respond to instead is the economic elite and their fleet of lobbyists, their cornucopia of campaign donations and golden post-retirement parachutes, and their captive mass media.

I am unsympathetic to Obama because I think he has been too timid, but I also think more effective stimulus and jobs bills would have been blockaded by the Republicans and skewered by the press. Egged on by the corporate-controlled mass media, the misinformed public would then have blamed the Democrats for not fixing the economy more than they blamed the Republicans for driving the economy into the ditch in the first place and later sabotaging all meaningful efforts to repair the damage.

As regards the consequences, this is not very different from what has already happened. The difference is that Obama has lost significant progressive support for not really trying. The usual defense offered on the President's behalf is that politics is the "art of the possible." If that is so, it is time to redefine the possible.

A few suggestions on things which should be considered for admission to the realm of debatable options, the realm of the "possible":
1. Sharply higher taxes for the very rich including raising the top marginal income tax rate, raising capital gains rates, and reclassifying most hedge fund income as ordinary income. The fact that the current debate on the subject is stuck on the wisdom of returning to a top marginal income tax rate of 39.6% is obscene. It is a testament to the subservience of the media to their masters. As a class, these people are looting the economy. The only reason to bow before most of them is to clamp on leg irons.

2. If you have a good number 1, you don't need a number 2, but here it is anyway: tariffs.

[Better Believe It]

105. Huh?

" I also think more effective stimulus and jobs bills would have been blockaded by the Republicans and skewered by the press. Egged on by the corporate-controlled mass media, the misinformed public would then have blamed the Democrats for not fixing the economy more than they blamed the Republicans for driving the economy into the ditch in the first place and later sabotaging all meaningful efforts to repair the damage."

That's exactly what has happened because the "stimulus" plan was far too timid because it was dependent on Republican support! In fact, three Senate Republicans actually wrote the bill with the support of a few conservative Democratic Senators. It was that or nothing unless the Obama administration intended to fight Republican obstructionism.

[hay rick]

111. Two obstacles.

I think I covered your point in my next sentence:"As regards the consequences, this is not very different from what has already happened. The difference is that Obama has lost significant progressive support for not really trying."

We agree that the stimulus plan was too timid to work and the primary reason for a crippled bill was the need for Republican and DINO support, particularly in the Senate. I think the second important reason was Obama's wishful thinking. Because economics is an inexact science, he believed that there was a chance that a small stimulus bill, abetted by the magical self-healing self-correcting mechanisms of the marketplace might be sufficient. Recall the projections of unemployment peaking around 8% with the stimulus plan in place.

In this way of thinking, the stimulus plan might work, and if it didn't it was still better than nothing and you could at least say you tried. Of course in America ca. 2010, you are more likely to hear talking heads cozying up to the idea that the "size problem" with the stimulus is that it was too big.

I wonder what's at the bottom of this hill. Looks like a long way down.

[Better Believe It]

106. Huh?

" I also think more effective stimulus and jobs bills would have been blockaded by the Republicans and skewered by the press. Egged on by the corporate-controlled mass media, the misinformed public would then have blamed the Democrats for not fixing the economy more than they blamed the Republicans for driving the economy into the ditch in the first place and later sabotaging all meaningful efforts to repair the damage."

That's exactly what has happened because the "stimulus" plan was far too timid because it was dependent on Republican support! In fact, three Senate Republicans actually wrote the bill with the support of a few conservative Democratic Senators. It was that or nothing unless the Obama administration intended to fight Republican obstructionism.

[fogonthelake]

110. He is blaming them now and we are still deep without jobs. We needed

and need action big time, not just blaming.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

7. nothing succeeds like failure that makes tons of $$ for corporations anyway nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. $230 billloin was awarded for 'rebuild America,' road repair projects, modernizing the electric grid

Implementing these programs at a state level is slow and disorganized. The process has been slower than expected. The biggest projects have been the slowest to start. None of the $17.5 billion for incentive payments for doctors and hospitals to start using electronic health records has been spent yet, because regulations for the payments were only finalized in July.

A few recipients of $7.2 billion in grants allocated to the expansion of broadband Internet services have started laying cables, but the rest are still busy with pre-construction work, such as environmental assessments, local approvals to attach fiber to utility poles, permits for rights of way and hiring subcontractors.

Groundbreaking for the first major high-speed rail project took place this month, when steel rails were delivered to Brunswick, Maine.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704532204575397061414483040.html

one can rally but putting people to work is not always instant!
3 million jobs have been created by the stimulus and more are to be created.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. While $12+ trillion is being gambled for bankers

Under "heads you win, tails we lose" rules.

Wouldn't it be nice if that kind of cash was put to work for working Americans?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. have all the banks paid their debts back yet?

[girl gone mad]

28. What debts?

They were largely gifted several trillion.

[Lorien]

116. Some "paid in back" in stock worth 0.66 for every dollar they took

then they lent our money back to the government-with a good interest rate, of course. x(

[SunsetDreams]

17. Where is the "12+trillion" number coming from?

[MannyGoldstein]

37. Here, for example

http://www.antemedius.com/content/actual-bailout-may-exceed-10-trillion
http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

[SunsetDreams]

20. What Exactly Was the Bank Bailout Bill?

Jul 2 2010
On October 3, 2008, the Senate passed the $700 billion bank bailout bill. The guts of the bill was the same as the three page document submitted on September 21, 2008, by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Paulson had asked Congress to approve a $700 billion bailout to buy mortgage-backed securities that were in danger of defaulting. By doing so, Paulson wanted to take these debts off the books of the banks, hedge funds and pension funds that held them. The bill established the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP). It originally gave troubled banks the right to submit a bid price to sell their assets to TARP as part of a reverse auction. Each auction was to be for a certain asset class. TARP administrators would select the lowest price for each asset class, which was to help assure that the government didn't pay too much for distressed assets. However, it took too long to develop the auction program, so instead Treasury lent $115 billion to banks by purchasing preferred stock.(Source: WSJ, Historic Bailout Passes as Economy Slips Further, October 4, 2008)

The bill also included much-needed oversights attached by Congress. It provided help for homeowners facing foreclosure by requiring Treasury to both guarantee their loans and help them adjust terms through HOPE NOW. It increased FDIC insurance for bank deposits to $250,000, and allowed the agency to tap as much federal funds as needed through 2009, allaying any fears that FDIC itself might go bankrupt.

Unless I've missed something 700 Billion just doesn't equal "12+Trillion"

More here: http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/govt_bailout.htm

Why the Bank Bailouts Were Necessary

The main question is: what would have happened if we didn’t do the bailout?

All of the banks would have gone bankrupt. Forget about fault for a second. (Was it the change in mark to market accounting rules in November 2007? Was it the aggressive subprime mortgage lending? Was it the shortsellers? Was it the run on the banks? Who knows.) Morgan Stanley (MS) would have definitely gone bankrupt. Then Wachovia. Then Citigroup. Then Goldman Sachs, Bank of America (BAC), etc.

Would this have been a good thing or a bad thing? Very bad. Read on.

Many major Fortune 100 companies would have gone bankrupt or had to scale back all of their operations drastically. General Electric (GE) is a prime example. They would have had zero access to the commercial paper and short-term financing that they had used to finance their business on a daily basis for decades. The entire commercial paper market was frozen and would have stayed frozen for months, too long for a company like GE to survive in its current form.

Most small businesses of 20-1000 employees would have gone bankrupt.

I ran a small business in the 90s. Because we were growing, we were often hiring employees to do new jobs for new clients well before those clients paid us. This is normal. Big companies typically pay in up to 20-60 days. But before they paid, I had to complete work for them. Which meant that because I was growing fast, I had to hire employees. Banks would offer short-term financing based on my contracts with companies so that I could then hire the new employees. Well, if the banks went bankrupt, there would be no short-term financing anymore (because my bank, Citigroup, would have gone out of business), which means no new employees, which means that I probably would have had to fire most of my then-current employees (If we were still in business in 2008) and effectively I would have been out of business. Most small businesses are like this, using short-term financing to make payroll. My friend suggested that businesses should have a “rainy day fund” set aside for these occasions. Else, they are poor businessmen. My monthly payroll back then (1998) was six times greater than my annual salary. There was no way that I, or any growing business, could have put aside that type of rainy day fund. Capitalism depends on leverage to grow.

Millions of people would have lost their insurance.

Companies like AIG would have gone out of business and millions of people would have been without adequate healthcare coverage. Not to mention life insurance, property insurance, and other insurances that would have been lost, and obligations that would never have been paid or would have taken years to settle in bankruptcy courts. Sure, AIG’s competitors could have picked up the leftover business. But anyone with an outstanding obligation or a preexisting condition would have been in trouble. Pain would have occurred to tens of millions of people.
Unemployment would have instantly gone to 20-25% or much higher.

Not this mythical “U6” that everyone keeps talking about but real unemployment, as 50%+ of businesses would have had to close down or drastically scale back.
If the above situations occurred, what would have been the chance for violence and civil unrest? Probably quite high.

More here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/188040-why-the-bank-bailouts-were-necessary

[girl gone mad]

29. You've missed quite a bit.

[SunsetDreams]

30. "hush-hush programs and crunches the hidden numbers"

From your link. If the programs are so hush-hush and the numbers are hidden, not sure how anyone could back those "numbers" up.
Interesting this is all from some author talking about hush hush programs and hidden numbers.

Yeah that's real proof.

[girl gone mad]

112. The inspector General overseeing TARP, Neil Barofsky,

said in his report that the amount of government guarantees, gifts, backstops and bailouts given to the banks totaled $23.7 Trillion dollars.

Do you also believe the government's chief bailout watchdog was lying?

Much of the looting has been hidden, funneled through secretive Fed programs, tax forgiveness schemes and backdoor bailouts designed to help the banks and the Fed avoid public scrutiny. However, there are people who have kept close watch over this entire fiasco.

You can deny it if you wish. I've seen the evidence first hand. The banks have just pulled off the largest heist of national treasure in the history of our country.

[Better Believe It]

100. That really demonstrates how puny, as Noriel Roubini put it, the stimulus plan was.

[sendero]

33. $230 billion..

... is not even 10% of what it will take.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

58. China put billions into its infrastructure and I don't think it has worked either

most countries are in the same boat.

[Better Believe It]

64. It actually seems to be working accordng to all recent reports I've read.

And it seems designed to uplift the wages and living standards of Chinese workers.

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

China launched its Economic Stimulus Plan to specifically deal with the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009. It has primarily focused on increasing affordable housing, easing credit restrictions for mortgage and SMEs, lower taxes such as those on real estate sales and commodities, pumping more public investment into infrastructure development, such as the rail network, roads and ports. By the end of 2009 it appeared that the Chinese economy was showing signs of recovery. At the 2009 Economic Work Conference in December ‘managing inflation expectations’ was added to the list of economic objectives, suggesting a strong economic upturn and a desire to take steps to manage it.<33>

By 2010 it was evident to outside observers such as The New York Times that China was poised to move from export dependency to development of an internal market. Wages were rapidly rising in all areas of the country and Chinese leaders were calling for an increased standard of living.<34>

By mid-2010 it has been widely reported in the media that China had overtaken Japan as the second largest economy in the world based on a interview by PBOC deputy governor Yi Gang.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#cite_note-32


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



China’s Export Economy Begins Turning Inward
By Edward Wong
June 24, 2010

BEIJING — For years, Chinese leaders looked to the millions of poor workers from the country’s interior as the engine of a roaring export economy. They would move to coastal provinces, toil in factories and churn out the world’s household goods.

These days, the workers are crucial for China’s economy in another way: They must start buying the very products they manufacture, spending their paychecks on lipstick and lingerie, plastic lawn chairs and plasma television sets. Officials see them as the linchpin of China’s move away from a lopsided economic model that relies too heavily on foreign consumption.

Some of China’s top leaders, including Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, have emphasized the need for that restructuring for years, especially since the global financial crisis pummeled the export industry. But China’s move this week to make its currency, the renminbi, more flexible and the authorities’ apparent tolerance of recent factory strikes that have led to significant wage increases both signal that Chinese leaders could be serious about re-engineering the nation’s economic model.

The currency shift brings immediate political benefits, since China will now presumably come under less pressure at the Group of 20 summit meeting this weekend. But there are important domestic considerations as well. The breaking of the renminbi’s de facto peg to the dollar means the currency is likely to appreciate in value, making Chinese exports somewhat less competitive in the global marketplace but strengthening the purchasing power of Chinese consumers. Likewise, government policies to encourage wage increases for poor laborers — there are an estimated 150 million migrant workers in cities — could also spur consumption, if the pay increases outpace inflation.

“The central government attitude toward raising wages is undoubtedly positive because it’s directly tied to boosting domestic consumption and restructuring the economy,” said Liu Cheng, a scholar of labor law at Shanghai Normal University. “For a long time, wage growth has lagged behind economic growth, and that has forced China to continue to depend on exports.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/world/asia/25china.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

67. then we should send a party out to see how it's done?

[Better Believe It]

94. No need for that. Invest a few trillion in infrastructure, substantially increase mimimum wages,

adopt a single payer health care system, lower the Social Security retirement age to collect full benefits to 62 and enable/encourage workers to organize labor unions by passing the Employee Free Choice Act and laws prohibiting corporate America from outsourcing jobs and using strike "replacement" workers.

Such a policy would jolt the United States (and most of the world) into the biggest and fastest economic recovery in history.

But I have to warn you, the Republican party and many Democrats along with Wall Street will not support such a plan and will attack it. Remember how they attacked F.D.R. as a "communist Bolshevik" and "Russian spy"?

Well, we certainly can't afford to open up President Obama to being called a "socialist" can we?

So it's far better to surrender and capitulate to the right-wing rather than endure endless slanders and hurtful name calling.

Now where's my white flag?

[Patchuli]

109. China's busy fixing the same problems we have

and I don't think I agree with you that their infrastructure fix is not working. Check this out...

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2010-08/chinas-straddling-bus-carries-passengers-overhead-lets-traffic-pass-underneath

[dotymed]

129. China's

economy just passed Japans. We have no manufacturing base. All we have is banksters and snake oil salesmen creating wealth for themselves, almost tax-free....

[Jim Sagle]

11. k to the r

[TheKentuckian]

13. The waste is staggering yet even now we stay the course..to Davey Jones locker

Trickle down and limited life support.

The investment in all forms of infrastructure is decades behind and our shit is crumbling-water, sewers, power distribution, internet distribution and speed, public transportation, lots of levies and dams, not even getting to new energy and highspeed rail.

Two trillion plus in infrastructure investment just to get or existing stuff up to code. How are we going to have a quality platform to compete with our shit in shambles?

Why would we only put a token effort into something so obvious and crucial and leave millions without work and wages collapsing for all?

[LooseWilly]

24. Have you seen the infrastructure in India?... but their economy is "blazing"...

All we need to "compete" is an endless supply of absurdly low wage workers, and some corporate-entrepreneurial "pimps" to arrange the use of them by corporate "clients".

The corporate clients have jets and helicopters, they don't need roads. The workers... they can crawl on scabrous knees for all anyone cares... and if they are late, fire them and hire some other desperate fucker whose legs still work... maybe one who's made a sensible investment in a bicycle or something...

(Hmm... this is turning into a Beckett story... Molloy if I remember right...)

[and-justice-for-all]

14. I do not agree with this article ...

I do not think it is Obama's responsibility to create jobs. The funding was allocated and it is then left to those who took those funds to administrate them appropriately, like when a state takes those funds; it is their responsibility to use those funds to create those jobs as well as companies that take federal funding.

It is rather annoying to hear and read that it is some how Obama's responsibility to create jobs, it is actually the responsibility of those who take the funding for creating those jobs responsibility.

[LooseWilly]

26. Are you sure that it is the article that you don't agree with?

Your apparent disagreement begins with: "I do not think it is Obama's responsibility to create jobs." You then go on to eloquently elaborate on this point.

I'm not sure that I would say that it is "Obama's responsibility to create jobs" either. On the other hand, the article didn't suggest it was "Obama's responsibility" either.

The article said:

...
President Obama missed his opportunity early last year to rally the public behind a call for shared sacrifice and a great national mission to rebuild the United States in a way that would create employment for millions and establish a gleaming new industrial platform for the great advances of the 21st century.
...

"President Obama missed his opportunity"... not "failed in his responsibility". I think it is important to realize what the criticism is here. It is not that Obama failed to uphold one of the duties of the job... it is that he has failed to be as successful as his inspired candidacy campaign suggested that he might be able to be.

The possibilities, the "hope"s, are everywhere agape, as the mediocrity of the "achievements" have scores and scores and scores of folk scratching their heads like grade-schoolers with a new case of lice... wondering "WTF happened??"

Or, is it just me scratching my head like a grade-schooler with a brand-new case of lice (all over again)?

But then I was recently reminded of the old DLC (Clinton-esque) strategy of triangulation... and a quick scan of a googling spots this gem:

The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. It is often referred to as "Clintonian triangulation". Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. These policies included deregulation and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over.

...

However, the campaign of President Barack Obama made expert use of triangulation. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, "It was Bill Clinton that recognized the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems. Clinton's third way... tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans."

In other words... adopt the policies of the Republicans, so that they can't use them as a basis to run against you... which explains perfectly the actions of Obama... the way the HCR debate played out, the way the DADT issue is playing out, the way the Wall St. reform is playing out, the hesitancy to appoint Elizabeth Warren, etc.

It also explains why Obama wouldn't choose to do anything as "hope"y as what the article suggests... because anything so visionary and helpful to people at large would be useable by the Republicans as something to point at to show how "FDR-socialist Obama is"... the administration doesn't want to pretend to have the responsibility to create jobs for Americans, and they sure as hell don't want to take any actions that might allow Republicans to label them as willing to use government to create jobs for Americans- because that might open them up to criticisms for being "socialists" in the eyes of the Republicans whose votes the Obama administration is currying... (they've made it obvious that they take the Democratic voters for granted)

But I'm sure you know all these things... I just thought I'd re-iterate them for you.

[rusty fender]

55. Excellent reiteration!

:applause:

[LooseWilly]

86. Why thank you...

Once you get over trying to project hopes... it all starts to come clear.

Cynicism, is there anything it can't solve?

[and-justice-for-all]

134. FAIL...nt

[pattmarty]

48. You're kidding, right?

[Mithreal]

90. Nope, just circlejerkular logic on display there.

It's very similar to the Regressives who live here in parts of redneckistan. They say government's bidness isn't to create jobs while most of them are working at the local shipyards, military bases, and "contractors". They wouldn't have a damn dollar to their name without government employment.

Sure looks like we are losing more than one war sometimes, especially when the barbarians aren't just at the gates but have been put on payroll and enforcement.

[Mithreal]

88. Of course not. Jobs? From the President? Don't be silly. It's Woodchuck 101.

[notesdev]

18. Even if he does make it his highest priority

he still wouldn't know WTF to do, as he's never seen the inside of a private business in his life, and he has nothing but finance industry vampires on his economic council.

Obama is the right man at the absolute wrong time.

[OHdem10]

19. He only has Advisors of the Conservative Mindset---the private

sector has to create jobs.

[snot]

21. Too much of the money was given to the rich, with no meaningful strings.

There's no reason the gov't couldn't impose enforceable requirements that the money be used to create jobs or otherwise trickle down.
And if it couldn't impose such requirements, then it should have given the money to those who need it most and were most likely to spend it, instead of to the people at the top, who've mostly hoarded it.

[pattmarty]

49. Bingo!!!!!!!

[Marr]

56. They only wanted to kick start the same corrupt, debt-based financial model that

got us into this mess in the place-- not actually fix things. That would involve giving the working class a degree of security, and when they have security they start making demands. They're less inclined to work three jobs for one wage.

[krispos42]

22. No, Obama's problem was the filibustering minority Repubs didn't make jobs Job #1 n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Oooh, filibuster! Scary! Must run and hide!

Let the Republicans filibuster till they're blue in the face and PUBLICIZE the fact that they are doing so.

A SMART administration, one that really wanted reforms instead of pretending to want reforms in order to get votes, would have said, "We have a WPA-style program for putting people back to work, one that will create x number of jobs, and the Republicans are blocking it."

[sendero]

99. It's obvious...

.. that the threat of a filibuster IS NOT NOT NOT the reason Obama doesn't get "what he wants".

He doesn't get it because he doesn't want it.

[dotymed]

130. 2 parties

one master.
The illusion that they have different goals has nearly disappeared....

[Better Believe It]

97. What filibuster? The fake pretend kind? Those can be easily overcome under Senate rules as ...

has been pointed out many times on DU.

The Republicans do not control the House and Senate.

Of course, that would be a surprise to many people.

[krispos42]

124. Yeah, except that changing the rules would require Dems to go along...

...with something that would rob them of minority power at some point in the future.


And around and around we go, with everybody afraid to upset the apple cart as it plunges down a hill and towards a cliff. :banghead:





Yanno, I once told a friend I saw a herd of unified Democrats riding galloping unicorns after a dragon. He called me a liar. "There's no such thing as unified Democrats!" he shouted. Then he told his jabberwocky to piss on me and stormed off on his antigravity skateboard.

:shrug:

[dkf]

23. It's still not his number one priority. I don't think he will ever get it.

And I think he left it too long to work properly anyway. We are so screwed.

[XemaSab]

27. "the public was poised to respond to bold leadership"

This is the crux of the article right here.

[Steely_Dan]

59. Exactly n/t

[jeanpalmer]

31. The job problem is related

to the imports problem. As demonstrated by June's trade deficit of $49 billion. Annualized, that's $600 billion a year more going out than coming in. It's about 4% of GDP. That represents millions of jobs lost.

You can't address the employment problem without addressing the trade deficit. Public works jobs are ok as a temporary means of reducing unemployment; but to solve the fundamental problem causing job losses in the private sector, it's essential to reduce the trade deficit. Increasing exports by selling more weapons abroad, as Obama is advocating, is morally reprehensible.

It's common knowledge that the trade deficit causes unemployment and lowers wages in the US. Obama knows it, and Congress knows it. They're too bought off by the corporations to address the problem. And so they devote their efforts to devising makework instead.

Hebert is correct in saying Obama should have focused on jobs. But from the standpoint of privater sector jobs, first figuring why they disappeared and how to get them back. I don't see any appetite to take on that task.

[lib2DaBone]

96. Very true.. We need to stem the flow of Chinese Junk in this country...

We also need research and development to return to America....

It's not all that complicated.. but Mr. Obama doesn't seem to be able to see the answer...

[sendero]

32. So obvious..

... and yet so clearly miles over Obama's head.

[JJW]

34. How do yo spell Corporatist?

Rahm, Obama, Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke.

[democracy1st]

41. +1

[TexasObserver]

35. recommend

[Lost4words]

36. agreed K & R!

too late now, major fail!

[BootinUp]

38. He didn't miss the opportunity, thats a total misconception

the truth is the opportunity wasn't big enough to do enough. The design of our government is such that it reacts too slow to these kinds of crises.

[Diane R]

76. Oh gosh. A voice of reason.

[bvar22]

87. "The design of our government is such that it reacts too slow "

Too slow?
Not when it is the RICH who have a problem.
They got their $800Billion less than a week after Paulson presented his extortion letter.
Our government can move DAMNED FAST when it wants to.

Now THIS is “Bi-Partisanship” !
Better get used to it!!
Hahahahahahahahaha!

[dotymed]

131. In these days of instant communication

it would seem things would be different.
At the very least, the national government should have more than one "home."
If they had Washington, D.C., style locations set up in at least 6 different regions, it would help the (not our) government to stay "in touch" with the people.
This is far down on my list of more effective government, but it is still there.
If Americans had guaranteed health care, they would be more willing to demand many other needs.
With out this, most are unwilling to rock the boat.
The government knows this.

[BootinUp]

136. So basically what you are saying

is you just don't get how congress doesn't always agree on shit?

Thanks for the helpful comment.

[Better Believe It]

98. So this form of government can't react effectively to crisis? We didn't see this kind of paralysis

after the 1932 presidential election.

We did see a similiar paralysis under President Hoover for three years after the 1929 crash.

[BootinUp]

135. Maybe Obama should have stayed in the Senate

then you folks could complain about someone else who isn't in the legislature.

[mother earth]

39. It's never been about "the people", it's always been about

the corporations and profits, all of it.

This is what oligarchy looks like, this is the gift that keeps on giving to that 1%, why worry about jobs when you can have deflation of wages? Problem is, we keep addressing every issue as though we have a democracy.

[BootinUp]

40. I would say its a democracy, just a poorly functioning one

where too many don't vote, and don't take the time to try and understand the issues, they want their information spoon fed to them, pre-digested.

[BootinUp]

137. What we don't have

is enough middle class and lower class voting and actually trying to understand the issues. Everyone is quick to blame ALL politicians instead of focusing on weeding out the fucked up ones.

[highplainsdem]

42. K&R

[Raineyb]

43. It's still not a priority. His big thing now is deficit reduction with is

antithetical to job creation as job creation costs money and the government is looking for a way to not spend it (at least not on the "small people" Oddly enough we always seem to have money for wars, banks, and other entities that have big bucks for numerous lobbyists)

Without doing something about the jobs situation (getting demand up) we are screwed.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

44. Not true- he's provided MANY jobs in America

for Indians...

[riskpeace]

50. He listened too much to the DC eggheads at certain Centers.

And their theories on how working families and low-income households are more likely to spend money in the economy. That may be true but nobody noticed their $15 tax cut per paycheck. And the soaring costs of basic goods ate all that up anyway. There's also the issue that many low-income households rely on bartering, informal economic networks and a cash economy to get by.

I'm still trying to figure out how millions for NIH research grants did anything to create any jobs. Let's be realistic, the stimulus was a Christmas tree for the budget advocates on the left and the states and counties. Somewhere around 1/3 of the money went to actual infrastructure projects that create jobs.

[Better Believe It]

51. House plan to create 6 million jobs to rebuild transportation infrastructure rejected by White House

Just last summer .....

$500 billion plan to upgrade U.S. transportation hits federal pothole
By SCOTT SMITH
Scott Smith is director of strategic initiatives for HNTB Corporation
KansasCity.com
July 13, 2009

Our roads, highways and bridges are crumbling under the strain of overuse and old age.

But a comprehensive solution may have encountered a bottleneck that will postpone for 18 months or longer a push to correct the sorry state of our surface transportation system. Delay is something we can no longer afford ....

We find ourselves in this predicament because we have not had a national transportation plan since the interstate highway system was launched in 1956.

U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, addressed these huge needs by introducing the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. Oberstar proposes spending $500 billion over the next six years to transform our antiquated system into the reliable, sophisticated network we need to safely and efficiently move people and goods.

The legislation would provide approximately:

•$337 billion for highway construction, including at least $100 billion to begin long-awaited repairs to our national highway system and bridges.

•$100 billion for mass transit, including $12 billion for repairs.

•$50 billion to fund 11 high-speed rail corridors linking major metropolitan areas.

The total investment would create or sustain about 6 million family-wage jobs, many here in the Midwest as our region continues to grow in importance as a transportation hub.

Unfortunately, Oberstar’s bill has collided with a proposal put forth by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. The secretary wants Congress to pass an 18-month highway authorization bill that would put off a comprehensive, long-term solution and instead perpetuate a piecemeal mix of half-measures and temporary remedies for our nation’s transportation woes.

This collision need not turn into a pileup — if we make the right choice. Oberstar’s approach is the right way to go.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1322647.html


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

Will Oberstar’s Grand Highway Plan Stall?
By Colby Itkowitz, CQ Staff
June 27, 2009

Oberstar recently made public the outline of an authorization bill for the government’s highway and transit programs that he hopes will be the capstone of his long legislative career: a six-year, $450 billion package he describes as rivaling President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s creation of the Interstate Highway System more than a half-century ago.

The approximately 800-page draft measure that Oberstar has been refining for months envisions an ambitious overhaul, consolidating more than 100 individual federal programs into four broad categories, while pumping billions of dollars into new highway and high-speed rail projects. Most significant, it would require that federal money be spent to achieve specific goals and measures — cutting congestion in a city by a particular amount, for example — rather than distributing it only by formula among states or through congressional earmarks.

This moment, which is the apex of his political career, could not have come at a worse time for a chairman who puts such a high value on policy purity and such a relatively low value on political posturing. It’s been clear for months that President Obama and Oberstar’s fellow Democrats who are higher up in the congressional power structure are in no hurry to tackle a multi-year highway and transit bill, because they would have to find a way to pay for it — and the White House has said a flat “no” to the notion of raising the gasoline tax, even temporarily, as Oberstar has proposed.

In fact, no sooner had Oberstar arranged to release an outline of his proposal than Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood went to Capitol Hill to reveal the administration’s own plan: an 18-month extension of current programs combined with a few of Obama’s favorite ideas — nothing like the full-blown overhaul of which Oberstar dreams.

“They cut the legs out from under him,” said the top Republican on Oberstar’s committee, John L. Mica of Florida.

It’s not that Oberstar wasn’t warned about how difficult it would be. At the very outset of this Congress, his party’s leaders sharply limited his role in assembling the economic stimulus bill (PL 111-5), which Oberstar and others thought was tailor-made for financing transportation projects that could quickly put people to work. He had written his own proposal and held hearings, gathering testimony from economists and from state and local leaders who vowed that investments in transportation infrastructure were the greatest short-term stimulus. But as the measure grew, Oberstar was edged out, and transportation became just a sliver in the overall package.

Obama, congressional leaders and governors no doubt agree with Oberstar that the nation’s road and rail networks are in desperate need of repair and expansion. But persuading them to pay for it is another matter.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1322647.html

Sorry. These are old stories so the newspaper links are no longer available. But here's the link to the original post on Democratic Underground:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8528080#8530081

[Better Believe It]

52. Only 101 billion of the 787 billion in stimulus money is for infrastructure!

Only 101 billion of the 787 billion in stimulus money is for infrastructure!

So, the stimulus package was not really a powerful job creation stimulus package.

For less than 200 billion dollars the federal government could have finance over 18,000 useful infrastructure and public works jobs that would have employed 2 million people. All of those projects would have been started and completed before the end of next year.
That was the economic recovery plan submitted by the United States Conference of Mayors. Their proposal wasn't even considered by the White House and Congress!

Out of 787 billion dollars in job "stimulus" funding here is what will be spent for actual infrastructure and energy job creation projects:

Infrastructure - $101 Billion
$30B - Highways
$20B - School Renovation
$17B - Health Information Technology
$13B - Transportation Projects
$8B - Water Projects
$7B - Military and V.A. Construction
$6B - Accelerated Deployment of Broadband

Energy Efficiency - $59.5 Billion
$22B - Federal Energy Efficiency Grants
$19B - Other Energy Efficiency Grants
$11B - Smart Electric Grid
$8B - Renewable Energy Loan Guarantees

Tax Cuts - $314 Billion
$99B - Payroll-Tax Holiday
$90B - Business Expenses Tax Breaks
$25B - Earned Income Tax Credit
$20B - Renewable Energy Tax Credit
$10B - Tuition Tax Credit
$70B - AMT Tax Cut


That's pretty much it.

The three Republican Senators who wrote the stimulus bill took out 40 billion dollars for badly need school construction, tens of billions of dollars in other infrastructure funding and added the annual alternative minimum tax (AMT)fix to the bill in order jack up the amount of the stimulus bill without actually increasing any jobs! It was a non-stimulative addition to the bill. The 70 billion dollar tax cut was going to get passed by the Senate, as it has been every year, without including it in the stimulus package! Senator Grassley proposed adding the AMT fix.

The rest of the stimulus money is mainly for badly needed economic relief such as unemployment compensation and economic assistance to state/local governments. But, those monies won't create very many jobs for the unemployed while they will enable some government workers to keep their jobs for awhile.

Now you should understand why Roubini and other leading economists said the stimulus plan was totally inadequate for the task. Roubini was a little less diplomatic calling it "puny".

And now the Republicans have been put into the position where they can attack "the Obama stimulus" for not creating the millions of jobs promised!

Nice set-up. President Obama and Democratic Party Senate leaders fell for this Republican trap in their quest for a unnecessary and self-defeating "bi-partisanship".

The three Republican Senators (one now a Democrat) gutted the House stimulus plan. Mission accomplished!

Here's the rest of the stimulus breakdown:

Aids For State and Local Gov - $217 Billion
$87B - Medicaid Cost Sharing
$79B - State Grants
$42B - State and Local Bond Tax Credit
$5B - Community Development
$4B - Rural Development

Relief - $120 Billion
$42B - Expanded Unemployment Insurance
$40B - Health Insurance for Unemployed
$20B - Expanded Food Stamps
$11B - Housing Assistance
$4B- Supplemental Social Security Income Payments
$3B - Welfare

Human Capital - $45.5 Billion
$25B - Education Programs
$15B - Federal Pell Grants
$4B - Job Training
$2B - Scientific Research

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

54. 11.5 million jobs

details

[Better Believe It]

57. What bi-partisan Republican/Democratic Senate group cut from the original stimulus bill

What got cut from the stimulus bill
February 7, 2009

Story Highlights

Bipartisan group of senators reaches compromise on stimulus bill

Items partially cut include funds for FBI construction, federal hybrid cars, EPA

Items entirely cut include funds for federal prisons, NASA, school construction

(CNN) -- A coalition of Democrats and some Republicans reached a compromise that trimmed billions in spending from an earlier version of the Senate economic stimulus bill.


CNN obtained, from a Democratic leadership aide, a list of some programs that have been cut, either entirely or partially:

Partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully eliminated

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $100 million for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration

• $89 million General Services Administration operations

• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security

• $200 million Transportation Security Administration

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization

• $1.2 billion for retrofitting Project 8 housing

• $40 billion for state fiscal stabilization (includes $7.5 billion of state incentive grants)

Senators worked late into the night to trim billions from the original stimulus bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/stimulus.cuts/index.html

[Radical Activist]

79. How odd that Herbert has a blind eye when it comes to the Senate.

Obama pushed exactly what Herbert is asking for. So why does he let the Senate off the hook for watering it down?

[Better Believe It]

95. The Senate passed exactly what President Obama wanted. So what's your point?

[Radical Activist]

104. Wow. A simple google search shows that isn't true.

The Senate took out things Obama wanted. Not to mention that Obama already called for more in his last state of the union. Herbie ignores that too.

[Better Believe It]

114. Really? Well, if it isn't true how about posting the text of President Obama's stimulus proposal?

Post it and the link.

If you can.

We'd all like to read the supposedly bold proposal and compare it to what was necessary and what President Obama endorsed and signed.

[Radical Activist]

117. How cute.

Yes, we all know that the President can't officially introduce any bill in Congress, and that Obama wanted to work with Congress to create the text. In fact, he first proposed it even before taking office. Asking for something that you know doesn't exist is a cute tactic but it doesn't prove anything. We know that Obama argued for spending that didn't pass the Senate, which shifted more emphasis to tax cuts.
We know that Obama proposed a second stimulus bill that Congress hasn't passed yet. I know it's easy to forget everything and accept the Republican narrative that Obama isn't doing enough about jobs. But, what's the point?

[dotymed]

132. I want desperately, to believe that President Obama

is actually fighting for the impoverished.
Sadly, the facts prove just the opposite.
If Obama did not "get what he wanted", he sure did not shout very loud about it.
He made some decent initial proposals. Unfortunately, he "folded", like a deck chair, right off the bat...

[Better Believe It]

138. Well can you at least tell us what stimulus package President Obama proposed?

You did say President Obama had a stimulus plan that was watered down by Republicans, right?

If not, did you not write that Obama had a clear stimulus plan?

And if you didn't, what's your point?

That Obama didn't have a jobs stimulus plan which he encouraged Congress to support?

We do know that Obama enthusiastically endorsed and signed the Republican/Democrat bi-partisan stimulus plan passed by the Senate. I don't recall him indicating it fell far short, even a little bit short, of what he desired. But, if I'm wrong you should present the facts along with credible links.

OK?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

60. Once again, Mr. Herbert is on the money

And the reality of people returning to decent paying jobs would SO help Congressional Democrats in the upcoming election...that is those Democrats who agree with Herbert!

K&R

[valerief]

61. WAR WAR WAR WAR is always the highest priority. nt

[Bluebear]

75. +

[MissDeeds]

85. Of course it is

And it's peace, justice, and the American way.

:puke:

[impik]

62. Two more years, then all will be better

[Quantess]

108. What does that mean?

[gulliver]

63. "nation's highest priority" is the first clue to just how stupid this is

The nation doesn't need a highest priority. It needs all of its high priorities balanced, managed, and worked.

And Herbert's idea that Obama could just "rally the public behind a call for shared sacrifice and a great national mission to rebuild the United States" is, frankly, absurd. The public was not "poised to respond to bold leadership." It was highly polarized, brooding, and suffering from the Republican Recession.

Obama did start rallying the public and orchestrating a successful future for the country. One of his biggest obstacles has been sideline conductors like Herbert. These folks don't know the first thing about rallying the country. They have miniscule influence, and they use what influence they have ineptly to break up rallies, not support them.

[Better Believe It]

65. "The public was not poised to respond to bold leadership" Is that why people voted for Obama?

So they voted for Barack Obama because they expected him to be weak President rather than a bold leader!!!??? That's a new and novel political spin. Where did you get that from?

"One of his biggest obstacles has been sideline conductors like Herbert. These folks don't know the first thing about rallying the country. They have miniscule influence, and they use what influence they have ineptly to break up rallies, not support them."

Like Gibbs said, it's those sectarian and isolated "professional leftists" like Herbert that are stopping real "changes we can believe in". The working class public has total faith and confidence in Washington politicians. It's just those left-wing whiners who fail to appreciate all that has been done for us.

Cut the bull shit.

That dog won't hunt, certainly not on Democratic Underground or any other progressive website.

[gulliver]

68. They have had bold leadership...

...but they were not poised for it by any stretch. It is because we got boldness that Obama is under such image pressure.

Republicans were poised against boldness. Also, a small, vocal percentage of liberals was poised for Conan vs. the Predator. They were, therefore, opposed to nonfiction variants of boldness. The vast majority, on the other hand, just wanted someone to make all of the bad things stop happening, bring back the good things, and build for the future.

[brentspeak]

72. Yeah, really. Forget Wall St., the GOP, and the ConservaDems

The real cause of our nation's ills are the few journalists with a conscience out there like Bob Herbert. They're the real villians...

[brentspeak]

70. So Herbert, who has "miniscule influence", manages to also be one of Obama's "biggest obstacles"?

Dumb Post of the Day.

[gulliver]

73. "sideline conductors like Herbert"

I used the word "like" to imply that that "sideline conductors" is a set, and Herbert is only an example. The post may still be dumb in your opinion, but it's not self-contradictory.

[Radical Activist]

78. The fact that he has no concept of the urgency to take action on climate change

is enough to make me dismiss him with the rest of the clueless pundits stuck in outdated ways of thinking.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. I had a former boss who said "there's no such thing as priorites"

"There are only two categories of things. The thing you are doing right now, and everything else."

FWIW, The first thing he had to do was secure the immediate banking crisis. I think the next was healthcare. The third probably should have been jobs, but it's arguably as important to reform the finance system to prevent the crisis from happening again.

Personally I think none of those things are done. Passing bills entitled "healthcare" and "finance reform" isn't necessarily enough.

[bertman]

71. REC. nt.

[Radical Activist]

77. How can someone so ignorant of the stimulus bill have a NYT column?

He's repeating a Republican talking point and pushing a false view that these things were not done by the stimulus bill. And why does he selectively forget to mention that the stimulus bill Obama proposed was bigger than what Congress passed? It's a shame that people actually fall for this garbage.

[DatManFromNawlins]

80. Dumping money to keep big business afloat does not create jobs

It merely sustains big business. All you have to do to maintain what we already have is to bleed the pig a bit. It takes real leadership to create jobs.

[Radical Activist]

81. Are you unaware

of the money that went to infrastructure like roads and high speed rail? Or that the biggest areas of spending in Obama's stimulus bill went to clean energy and energy efficiency projects?
I know complaining about the bank bailout is a popular talking point but it's dishonest to pretend that's the only thing Obama did.

[Better Believe It]

103. The money that went to infrastructure like roads and high speed rail was peanuts!

Compared to what was needed and proposed by House members.

Read post 51 for details. "House plan to create 6 million jobs to rebuild transportation infrastructure rejected by White House"

[Radical Activist]

107. Yeah, fuck progress! And fuck any efforts to do anything good!

That talking point is so tired. I'm sure your effort to first deny, and then minimize what has already been done is the perfect way to encourage more action. Nothing motivates Congress to do something like knowing that no one cared the last time they did it. :eyes:

Just because you want more of something doesn't mean you have to lie to people by pretending nothing has been done so far. You can't motivate people to act by lying to them. Sooner or later they'll figure out that you don't respect them and think they're too stupid to see through the lies.

[Better Believe It]

115. Stop the personal attacks and accusing DU'ers of lying who you don't agree with.

You wrote: "Just because you want more of something doesn't mean you have to lie to people by pretending nothing has been done so far. You can't motivate people to act by lying to them."

That's false. I have not indicated that the Obama administration has done nothing to create any jobs. On the contrary, I have posted documented, detailed hard facts showing exactly what the stimulus money is paying for and what stimulus projects were either cut or completely eliminated by the Senate.

Here are those facts once again.

Out of 787 billion dollars in job "stimulus" funding here is what will be spent for actual infrastructure and energy job creation projects:

Infrastructure - $101 Billion
$30B - Highways
$20B - School Renovation
$17B - Health Information Technology
$13B - Transportation Projects
$8B - Water Projects
$7B - Military and V.A. Construction
$6B - Accelerated Deployment of Broadband

Energy Efficiency - $59.5 Billion
$22B - Federal Energy Efficiency Grants
$19B - Other Energy Efficiency Grants
$11B - Smart Electric Grid
$8B - Renewable Energy Loan Guarantees

Tax Cuts - $314 Billion
$99B - Payroll-Tax Holiday
$90B - Business Expenses Tax Breaks
$25B - Earned Income Tax Credit
$20B - Renewable Energy Tax Credit
$10B - Tuition Tax Credit
$70B - AMT Tax Cut

Here's the rest of the stimulus breakdown:

Aids For State and Local Gov - $217 Billion
$87B - Medicaid Cost Sharing
$79B - State Grants
$42B - State and Local Bond Tax Credit
$5B - Community Development
$4B - Rural Development

Relief - $120 Billion
$42B - Expanded Unemployment Insurance
$40B - Health Insurance for Unemployed
$20B - Expanded Food Stamps
$11B - Housing Assistance
$4B- Supplemental Social Security Income Payments
$3B - Welfare

Human Capital - $45.5 Billion
$25B - Education Programs
$15B - Federal Pell Grants
$4B - Job Training
$2B - Scientific Research

Now which of above facts are you claiming are lies?

They are all true. And I think you know they are true.

Therefore, I expect an apology for calling me a liar.

This is not a trash talk discussion board. Demonstrate some respect for Democratic Underground and DU'ers by engaging in civil debate rather than personal attacks.

OK?

[Radical Activist]

118. You post an article which accuses Obama of not focusing on jobs

which failed to mention the parts of the stimulus bill that did exactly what the columnist claims needs to be done. Then you called those efforts by Obama peanuts. I believe those words create a false impression.

[Better Believe It]

123. So are you retracting your false claim that I lied?

Compared to what was is necessary in the way of job creation the stimulus plan President Obama supported and signed amounts to peanuts in my book. Roubini called it puny. Do you think that was a better description?

The small portion of stimulus money spent on actual job creation obviously falls way short of the kind of bold plan proposed in the article.

So what's your problem with the writer?

I can't think of a single writer, or for that matter anyone in the White House, who described President Obama's stimulus plan as bold. Can you?

[inna]

126. Please stop the ridiculous personal attacks. It's explicitly against the rules, you know.

Plus, such attacks reflect badly on YOU, not on the OP whom you're wrongly accusing of lying and somehow trying to "motivate" and "disrespect" "people". What an absurd accusation, anyway, you should be embarrassed of yourself.

[Better Believe It]

101. So when did advocating a bigger and bolder jobs plan become a Republican talking point?

And I believe the rest of your comment is an inaccurate re-write of historical facts.

"why does he selectively forget to mention that the stimulus bill Obama proposed was bigger than what Congress passed?"

Please post a copy the "stimulus bill" which you claim President Obama proposed to Congress.

We would all like to read it and see how it compares to what was actually needed and what was finally passed by the Republican/Democrat bi-partisan group in the Senate.

Thanks.

[Johonny]

121. I agree when Obama was talking jobs he found very few on the other side listening.

That wall street reform was about fixing the economy, any help from rethugs on that? Fixing the health care system would help create jobs, any help there either? How about alternative energy or NASA? How about saving the auto industry and rethug help there? Dems have been trying since OBama has been president and we the people would have gotten much better bills and jobs for our money had even 10 % of the Rethugs in Congress cared about the American people. So * this writer if he thinks Obama is the source of Americas government not doing enough on jobs.

[inna]

127. What's a shame is that some posters can't tell a RW talking point from an obviously valid criticism

from the left perspective - or at least pretend that they can't.

[BlueJac]

83. Obama.......

just another failing president, that has stuffed corporations pockets with our money. just another tool for the powers to be. Goldman sachs is just fucking loving it and has been ever since they took control of our fucked up government. Just follow the bailout money......the buck stops there!!!!!

[stuart68]

89. Isn't Goldmann positioned to cash in on Cap & Trade ?

I thought I heard they are running the exchanges - that will be VERY lucrative....

[ihavenobias]

84. K & R n/t

[Little Star]

91. K&R

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. Even more important than the columns are the comments

Read the Comments in the order "Readers' Recommendations," and you can see where the average Times reader stands.

No, most people don't read the Times, but I'd bet that Times readers are more likely to vote than the average person.

I hope someone in the White House is reading these comments.

[fogonthelake]

113. This one gave me a lump

in my throat.

Thanks for pointing out to the comments. Many are worth the read.

pvolkov
Burlington, Ontario
August 14th, 2010
2:25 am
I am tired of people I know excusing President Obama's lackluster performance by saying look at what he was handed when he got into office and how strong and united the opposition is. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was also handed an impossible situation but the difference is that he surrounded himself with wise and caring people who had inspiring visions of what could be accomplished. He refused to be intimidated by his political enemies and always spoke and listened to the people. He was not afraid to try different ways of dealing with financial catastrophe, poverty, job loss and if something did not work he had the courage to try something else.
He was strongly supported by the struggling masses because they knew he was in their corner and that we had to work together to resolve existing problems. Despite his physical frailty, he became a true warrior and role model for the nation.
I have remembered those eventful and remarkable years throughout my lifetime, realizing that the times we are living through now, with the behavior of our leaders, lawmakers and many citizens, will not be remembered for courage, greatness of spirit, or concern for the common man.

This is something to be truly depressed about

[Lydia Leftcoast]

120. I find the comments to be as valuable as the columns, sometimes more so

especially when the respondents go after Ross Douthat, the token right-winger.

[Orsino]

93. Because we need less emphasis on the environment and on ending the wars?

:shrug:

[Better Believe It]

119. Several thousand unemployed union members in Los Angeles demonstrated for jobs on Friday

Several Thousand Union Members Rally in Downtown L.A. To Bring Jobs Back To California
By Steve La
August 13, 2010

"We're here because presence has power," said Steven Pasillas, 31 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 11. "We want jobs to open up because the economy is in bad state right now."

A sea of signs displaying "I Want To Work", "Paychecks Pay The Bills", "Equality Justice" and more filled the south lawn of City Hall. Workers chanted, "We want work."

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/city-news/several-thousand-union-members/

[inna]

128. About time. And you know what, more FTAs are not going to help either.

We need a better plan.

[blindpig]

133. But one aspect of the problem..

that problem being that in a capitalist society Capital is supreme and only after Capital's requirements are met might anything else be considered.