Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Jobs speech: YouTube of full 33 minutes

  1. Sep 8, 2011 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed



    It took me a while to find a video of the complete speech, so I thought I'd share this link in case others want to watch it. He gets a lot into 33 minutes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 8, 2011 #2

    Char. Limit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Is this where we're going to discuss the speech? Because I feel that's inevitable.
     
  4. Sep 9, 2011 #3
    Not I. I heard he tried the humble pie approach.

    Whoops! pardon...
     
  5. Sep 9, 2011 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    There's plenty positive that one can say about the speech. It will become significant if there is a change of mood in the country leading to a popular call for government to take initiatives for common goals---to renew infrastructure and education, to revitalize the middle worker/consumer core of society.

    By itself the America's Jobs Act is certainly not enough, just a step in the right direction--see Robert Reich's comment ("two cheers and a jeer") http://robertreich.org/post/9984121331
     
  6. Sep 9, 2011 #5
    Personally, I think a short term (3 to 4 month) extension of unemployment benefits is better than a 12 month extension - even if benefits will continue to be extended for 24 to 36 additional months. A shorter renewal time instills a sense of urgency to re-engage.

    I'm a little disappointed that President Obama didn't have a complete strategy to present and that he wants funding to be intertwined with the Congressional deficit reduction effort. Also, I don't trust any plan that spends an additional $400Billion today and proposes cuts in 10 years - especially when the President is attempting to change the agreed upon structure and task of the debt reduction committee before their first meeting.

    If anything, I think President Obama just opened the door for Mitt Romney's plan to be considered as an alternative.
     
  7. Sep 9, 2011 #6

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It is not the job of the US federal government to renew education or revitalize 'workers'. However, the federal government can and has created impediments to both.
     
  8. Sep 9, 2011 #7

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Where would you have the government get the money to take said step?
     
  9. Sep 9, 2011 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What does it mean to "renew education" and "revitalize workers"?
     
  10. Sep 9, 2011 #9
    We can start by lowering the Corporate tax rate and get the big corporations paying taxes in this country again.

    Even when they off shore their headquarters they still pay taxes. There is a town in Switzerland named Zug. They have dozens of American corporation with headquarters registered there. Many of them are simply a store front or just a mail box.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/25/60minutes/main20046867.shtml



    We cant afford to stimulate the economies of other countries.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011
  11. Sep 9, 2011 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So then it is your position that we should have the lowest tax rates in the world? Surely the same problem will exist if there is ANY place to go that has lower rates than ours. Given that places like the Cayman Islands have no taxes, it seems that we need to eliminate all taxes in order to capture lost corporate taxes.

    And what about labor laws, environmental laws, product safety, OSHA, the USDA, and the FDA? These are all thorns in the side of industry. By the logic of the tax argument referenced, shouldn't these be eliminated as well? Shouldn't we do whatever it takes to entice industry?
     
  12. Sep 9, 2011 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What else can be done given the state of the economy and our level of debt? It's a catch 22. I doubt that anyone thinks it's a good option or even an acceptable option. What I do seem to see is that it's our only practical option.

    We have to bet the economy will get better, right? Are we going to bet that America fails. And if so, if we are going to bet that we don't make it, then what does it matter anyway - borrow as fast as we can and break out the booze!
     
  13. Sep 9, 2011 #12
    WOW you sure added your own elaborate opinion to a simple idea. I would rather see the 20% in taxes that is going to Switzerland go to America. Thats about it.

    We simply can't go on the way we are.
     
  14. Sep 9, 2011 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Here's Obama's fact sheet on it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

    Here's my problem with it:
    So he is going to spend a bunch more money, while simultaneously saying he'll tell us how we should pay for it in a few days (hasn't he been working on this plan for a month?), but also says he wants the deficit committee to figure it out. What if what he comes up with in a few days is something the deficit committee also would have come up with? Even assuming he comes up with viable ideas, he's making their job harder by taking options away from them.

    Six weeks. That's all it took for Obama to push us in the opposite direction of the debt deal. And he wants us to believe it's the Republicans who are negotiating in bad faith? This is exactly like what happened to Reagan and exactly why Tea Party Republicans were so uncompromising on taxes. Cutting spending is hard. Increasing spending is easy. Increasing spending immediately after agreeing to cut spending is a broken promise. That's why instead of an agreement to raise taxes now and maybe cut spending later if we can figure out how, possibly, maybe we needed a no-compromise position on taxes. Obama needs to put forward a plan to cut spending now and maybe we can talk about raising taxes after that's done, possibly, maybe.

    Obama is great at specific plans to spend more. Not so good at plans to spend less (I seem to remember someone starting a thread on that....).
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011
  15. Sep 9, 2011 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    And what about all of those places that have a lower tax rate or none at all. Why is Switzerland the unique target?

    I wasn't adding my own ideas, I was extending the logic.
     
  16. Sep 9, 2011 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's right, because right now is not the time to spend less. Now is the time for stimulus spending in spite of the debt. We have no choice. We need to wait until the economy regains strength. Drastic spending cuts right now could make things worse.

    Would you have voted against the bank bailouts were you in Congress at the time?
     
  17. Sep 9, 2011 #16
    The town in Switzerland was the (unique) target only because that is the one covered in the link provided. ??
     
  18. Sep 9, 2011 #17
    Why?

    Why?

    We always have a choice.

    Thanks for answering that one! I don't agree with your answer, though.

    I would have, yes. Bailouts, emergency relief, and declaration of disaster areas tend to reinforce irresponsible behavior, which in turn leads to even more neediness in the future. On the other hand, reinforcement of the idea that "you're on your own, so don't build on flood plains (or if you do, use stilts), build to withstand hurricanes, and if you put your money into a bank, be sure to research it first" tends to reinforce caution and self-reliance.

    Scrubbing rotten tissue from a wound hurts and seems to makes things worse, but only temporarily. Unburdened of the rotten tissue, the wound heals as healthy tissue grows. Spending cuts are little different. Whatever they may hurt is rotten tissue, and healthy tissue can't take its place until the rotten tissue is excised.

    I'm with Russ Waters on this one.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2011
  19. Sep 9, 2011 #18
    Here is a simple jobs idea- right now infrastructure in the US is horrible. Operator error somehow knocked out power for more than 12 hours to millions of people between Yuma, AZ and Tijuana, Mexico just yesterday. Everyone agrees our infrastructure has to be replaced eventually.

    Also, right now, borrowing costs for the government are at an all time low. People are lining up to loan money to the government AT A LOSS. ITS CHEAPER TO BORROW MONEY THAN PAY CASH.

    So, we have to replace infrastructure eventually, and its cheapest to do it RIGHT NOW. Thats good policy just on the face of it. As a side effect, guess what, people get put to work.
     
  20. Sep 9, 2011 #19
    Are you certain the blackout was due to infrastructure problems - the news reports I heard blamed operator error.
     
  21. Sep 9, 2011 #20
    If one operator mistake can kill power from Yuma to Tijuana, its an infrastructure problem. A functioning system isolates the problem.
     
  22. Sep 9, 2011 #21
    It sounds like a utility company problem - not a taxpayer bailout problem to me. Perhaps someone knowledgeable can help explain it to us?
     
  23. Sep 9, 2011 #22
    The power grid has been deteriorating for years. The last time AZ had a major outage it originated in Idaho.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-28/us/infrastructure.report.card_1_drinking-water-infrastructure-aging?_s=PM:US [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  24. Sep 9, 2011 #23

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah, there really is always a choice. More importantly, Obama made an agreement and a promise. Are you suggesting that you think it is ok for Obama to negotiate in bad faith? To make promises that he doesn't intend to keep or intends to pass off to others to keep for him?
    Regardless of when they happen, spending cuts will always make things worse in the short term -- but they will make things better in the long term. If the debt was small, the long-term pain wouldn't be very severe, but the larger the debt, the worse-off we are in the long term if we raise it more. That's why the Europeans are in so much trouble right now and what you are advocating simply puts us further into the hole they are in.
    I'm not sure. I certainly didn't like them as a matter of principle, but they ended up working and being nearly balance sheet neutral. Balance sheet neutral. Balance sheet neutral. So there's a big difference between TARP and the stimulus there. One costs money in the short term but you get almost all of the money back and the other costs money that you never get back. One stops a panic and prevents a crash, the other just transfers GDP from the future to the present (at less than 100% efficiency due to interest and waste).
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011
  25. Sep 9, 2011 #24

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    While that's true, your position presupposes that the increase in the debt will be temporary and then the money will be paid back before borrowing costs go up. Do you really think that will happen?
     
  26. Sep 10, 2011 #25
    The real rates are negative on everything up to 10 years. 30 years are slightly positive rates, but still historically low. We can borrow today, pay it off over 30 years, and have those low rates. Keep in mind that most of the time the government DOES run a surplus/grow out of debt (one or the other, sometimes both). Only two presidents since WW2 have increased debt/GDP during periods of economic growth (Reagan and W. Bush).

    Further, we don't have a choice- eventually large sections of the grid will be replaced, and we prevent productivity loss by doing it sooner (a stitch in time saves nine, as they say). This isn't NEW spending, its moving future spending to today where (oddly) it costs less. We will almost certainly have to replace large chunks of our power infrastructure in the next 30 years. Instead of spreading the spending out, lets take out a mix of 10 and 30 year bonds to do it now. This has several advantages

    1. total cost is lower (only because of the weird negative real rate situation we find ourselves in- this is totally inverted to the usual idea of credit)
    2. it front loads the work now, giving people jobs while the private sector gets moving on hiring, lessening the pain of the recession
    3. If we decide to go "smart grid" in our upgrade, its a chance for private sector entrepreneur's to fill new niche's in the economy (if we announce the spending is happening over the next X years it cuts down on regulatory uncertainties. I know of two start-ups with quality products that went under because US utilities have little interest in large upgrades).

    TARP was balance sheet neutral because of the crazy direct involvement of the Fed related to propping up large banks. We could make the stimulus revenue neutral by printing money. This points to the larger issue that the fed is doing a great job with its inflation mandate, but a truly terrible one with its employment mandate- creditors are being protected at the expense of debtors. Its a great morality tale, but economics shouldn't be about morality, it should be about laying the groundwork for the best growth.

    edit:
    That should say minus interest- (real rates are negative), so it means that we get more bang-for-the-buck by borrowing than by spending-within-our-means. See this post- http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/09/...-is-the-us-government-still-collecting-taxes/
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2011
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Loading...