1. Will the President propose genuinely "bipartisan" measures to create jobs?

2. Will the President propose to pay for these measures with genuine offsets in spending or tax increases?

3. Will the electorate see this as a Presidential moment of responding to a crisis (thus justifying the calling of a joint session of Congress) or will they see it as a political speech?

4. Will the Packers beat the Saints?

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Will the President propose genuinely "bipartisan" measures to create jobs?

No. He will recycle ideas without consulting Republicans in any meaningful way.

2. Will the President propose to pay for these measures with genuine offsets in spending or tax increases?

No, they won't be genuine offsets (cuts). He will propose cuts long after the next election, which may or may not ever come into being. Whatever he proposes tonight, if passed, would just be tacked onto the Debt, if he had his way.

3. Will the electorate see this as a Presidential moment of responding to a crisis (thus justifying the calling of a joint session of Congress) or will they see it as a political speech?

My sense is that if there is any bump in the polls, it will be exceptionally short-lived. The only way he can move the needle is to do something shocking. I don't believe he will, particularly since it appears he's not even going to give us the details tonight. This looks like a speech long on themes and rhetoric, but short on specifics.

4. Will the Packers beat the Saints?[

Home field says "yes," but I think it will be a very close game.

no; no; political; punt.

No
No
Political
Saints 30-17

and what happened

1) I guess not. Most of the plan is tax cuts or tax credits, which might appeal to Republicans, but not if it comes from Barack's mouth. How many even turned up to listen?
2) No, he said he'd announce that later
3) can't it be both a reaction to a crisis and political? Surely by definition a politican announcing action that has a political impact in response to a major problem (a stagnant economy and stubornly high unemployment) is doing just that? Are any of the other responses going to be determinedly apolitical?
4) 21-10 up so far. Go PACKERS!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... n-jobs-act

Well, I read it, note it is just a summary. Bottom line until the President releases the detailed plan that shows how the committee (what is it 12?) should come up the $447B needed in additional deficit reduction to offset this acts price t...ag, I have to reserve final judgement.

Initial thoughts: IF, and only IF, we can find $447B additional in spending cuts to pay for this, then I'll warm up to it. Even the parts I flat out disagree with, and there are a few. Simply we need the Feds to get out of the way of business, labor, and the states. This is not a plan to get out of the way. But neither is it a plan to impede in the name of growing government for the sake of a political philosophy.

As we do need action to give business a reason to have confidence in making competitive investment, and we need it sooner than yesterday, I'm willing to swallow my nature to oppose the Fed trying to solve problems that they almost always fail at solving.

Still this seems to be a risky as honestly I am not sure what happens if the uber-committee cannot find the nearly $2T in spending cuts they are charged to find by end of year. By End of YEAR?! Hmmm, so skeptical I am. Hopeful, but skeptical.

21-17 now. so far the Packers have made a total of 3 yards in the second Q.

@#$! Green Bay!

And on cue they start to get the yards and another TD. Nice heckle RK!

danivon wrote:And on cue they start to get the yards and another TD. Nice heckle RK!

Yeah not my best work

danivon wrote:and what happened

1) I guess not. Most of the plan is tax cuts or tax credits, which might appeal to Republicans, but not if it comes from Barack's mouth. How many even turned up to listen?
2) No, he said he'd announce that later

This notion that tax cuts are good and spending is bad is too simplistic. It really does matter what kind of tax cut (and what kind of spending). We need a stable tax policy that can be used for long term planning. I'm not against this particular tax cut, but the reality is that if you want a real improvement in our economy which is based on productivity, we need confidence that the tax rules are steady, and we need the lowest possible marginal tax rate possible. Distortions and complexity are part of the problem. Not all tax cuts are alike.

I am pleased that the intention is for future cuts to accompany the one time stimulus.

Ray Jay wrote:This notion that tax cuts are good and spending is bad is too simplistic.

I would agree. I think many Republicans would agree too--IF there was a genuine desire to push for something that works in the real world, rather than a genuine desire to provide subsidies to supporters.

Anyone else notice that a disproportionate number of Obama's proposals are for union jobs? Cops, firemen, teachers, construction workers . . . union, union, union, union!

It really does matter what kind of tax cut (and what kind of spending). We need a stable tax policy that can be used for long term planning.

This is spot on. The problem is that nothing I've read about what Obama has said or proposed looks permanent. Maybe when all the details are out that will be different. The idea that a Stimulus Jr. package is the way to go is, I think, remarkable.

The first Stimulus, if it worked at all, was a tepid success. We know there are trillions sitting on the sideline. So, why not try and get that money engaged? That seems like THE way to go. And, temporary credits, deductions, etc., do not provide certainty. I don't think these proposals will do much because they don't give it.

I'm not against this particular tax cut, but the reality is that if you want a real improvement in our economy which is based on productivity, we need confidence that the tax rules are steady, and we need the lowest possible marginal tax rate possible. Distortions and complexity are part of the problem. Not all tax cuts are alike.

I was somewhat heartened by the President's call for tax simplification and SSI/Medicare modification. If he's serious, maybe something can be done that will be positive.

I am pleased that the intention is for future cuts to accompany the one time stimulus.

I'm not. Here's why from the AP:

OBAMA: "It will not add to the deficit."

THE FACTS: It's hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery. Deficits are calculated for individual years. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. Perhaps Obama meant to say that, in the long run, his hoped-for programs would not further increase the national debt, not annual deficits.

Want jobs right away? How about drilling for oil?

Want to fire up the economy? Lower energy prices by expanding our use of carbon-based fuels.

Ray Jay wrote:This notion that tax cuts are good and spending is bad is too simplistic. It really does matter what kind of tax cut (and what kind of spending). We need a stable tax policy that can be used for long term planning. I'm not against this particular tax cut, but the reality is that if you want a real improvement in our economy which is based on productivity, we need confidence that the tax rules are steady, and we need the lowest possible marginal tax rate possible.

I agree. Similarly, a tax increase may be good or bad, depending on what it being taxed and how the change occurs. I hope that we can agree that taking such simplistic lines is dogmatism when we need pragmatism.

On these particular tax cuts, it seems that the bulk of them are aimed at the lower earners. This is a good thing for the economy, because a relatively small cut in taxes can result in a fairly large proportional increase in disposable income. While it's not a great idea to use a tax-cut stimulus during a boom, as that can lead to a bubble and/or inflation, it is one way to deal with a moribund economy.

Distortions and complexity are part of the problem. Not all tax cuts are alike.

True, but we all know that simplification is easier said than done. If the USA were to suddenly simplify its tax system, there would be all kinds of odd effects that would create complex outcomes. If these tax cuts don't add much more complexity, or even remove a little, then all to the good. However, I think that there's a point when long term concerns about complex tax systems adding friction need to take aback seat to the short term issue that there's a recession just past, a potential one coming up, and a lot of people without jobs who need them and want them (and while they are unemployed they are not contributing tax and are receiving benefits, exacerbating the deficit problem).

I am pleased that the intention is for future cuts to accompany the one time stimulus.

It's the best way to do it. Cutting too early risks neutralising the stimulus, and so wasting the whole exercise.

Ah, and again... Go Packers!

ray

This notion that tax cuts are good and spending is bad is too simplistic. It really does matter what kind of tax cut (and what kind of spending).

Too true.
His speech was political. But then he's in a political battle over tax policy.How could it be anything else?
Consider that Obama wants to continue with payroll tax cuts, and apparently republicans opppose them. On the basis that the continued tax break adds to the deficit.
But Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and Republicans oppose that. On the basis that the continued tax break doesn't add too much to the deficit. .
Obama is going to fight the next election as a class war... And juxtaposing these taxes and the republican position is a pretty good weapon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/po ... .html?_r=1

Roadkill wrote:@#$! Green Bay!

that's a lot of holes...