Obama's promised jobs-

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
Obama raises estimate on jobs in his economic plan
By Jeff Zeleny and David M. Herszenhorn

WASHINGTON — One day after the U.S. unemployment rate was reported to be at a 16-year high, Barack Obama, again raised the estimate of how many jobs would result from his economic recovery plan, saying it would create or save three million to four million, nearly 90 percent of them in the private sector.

In his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama sought to inject a positive note into the economic outlook by releasing a report from his advisers that estimated the number of jobs that could be created with his plan by the end of 2010.

The report noted, however, that at least five million jobs, and probably many more, were expected to have been lost during the downturn. So even if the most optimistic projections bear out, unemployment in December 2010 will still be higher than it was in December 2007.

Obama's address was his latest effort to sell a $775 billion proposal to Congress, whose leaders have pledged to adopt a bill by mid-February, and to Americans stung by the recession.

"The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries," Obama said. "And they'll be the kind of jobs that don't just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long term."

Without an economic recovery plan, the report warned, the unemployment rate could hit 9 percent, up from 7.2 percent now. If the plan is adopted, unemployment is still expected to rise but then to fall late this year.

The report, and Obama's speech, also seemed intended to counter criticism, particularly from some Republicans, that his plan would create bureaucracies rather than put people to work.

The 14-page report, prepared by Christina Romer, who is Obama's choice to lead his Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, an economic adviser to the vice president-elect, Joseph Biden Jr., provides specific examples for the first time of the types of jobs that could be created, including a detailed industry-by-industry breakdown.

Obama said his plan could create about 500,000 jobs by investing in clean energy, doubling the production of alternative energy over three years and improving the energy efficiency of government buildings and homes.

The president-elect said building solar panels and wind turbines and developing fuel-efficient cars would create "made-in-America jobs" that could not be outsourced.

The report also suggested that nearly 400,000 jobs could be created by building and repairing roads, schools and bridges. More than 200,000 jobs could be created in health care, particularly by creating a nationwide system of computerized medical records.

Some conservatives argue that jobs that exist only as a result of temporary government spending should not be viewed as providing real, long-term growth. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are engaged in vigorous debate over how best to stimulate the economy and to create jobs. Some Democrats say Obama's plan would be more effective if it were to focus fewer dollars on tax cuts and more on government spending, especially in the energy sector.

Some top Republicans, meanwhile, are pushing for broader tax cuts. "We want to make sure it's not just a trillion-dollar spending bill," said the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, "but something that actually can reach the goal that he has suggested."

Obama transition officials have said that the president-elect's proposed middle-class tax cut - called "Making Work Pay," which would provide $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples by reducing payroll tax withholdings - is "nonnegotiable." McConnell is pushing an alternative that would cut the tax rate for most middle-income workers, to 15 percent from 25 percent.

In the campaign, Obama vowed to create one million jobs, and after winning election he put forth a plan to create as many as three million. The report now puts the figure at about 3.7 million, the midpoint of an estimated range of 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by the end of next year.

Even now, though, it is merely an estimate based on a model that assumes a million jobs for stimulus spending equal to 1 percent of economic output.

In the report, Obama seems to address the criticism from some Democrats that his economic stimulus plan favors tax cuts over creating new jobs. The report concedes that tax cuts and giving aid to states "are likely to create fewer jobs" but says the tax cuts are needed to jump-start the economy quickly.

"There is a limit," the report said, "on how much government investment can be carried out efficiently in a short time frame."

Jackie Calmes contributed reporting.
Published: Thursday, January 1, 2009
 
bet he didn't mention the 13,000 Saturn workers that are going to have to find a new job, ohhh lets not forget the entire Pontiac division too
 
LMAO, making jobs. Michigan = 16% unemployment rate. Not much construction to be heard of. Those other jobs (green) none of us unemployed are even qualified for that. And I'm pretty sure anything can be outsourced. I don't know why he won't tell the truth. I have no idea what the hell I'm doing or how to fix anything, I'm just grabbing at straws and talking out of my azz. You people losing houses and jobs are pretty much :q:q:q:qed, you should learn how to sweet talk eveyone like I did. Who cares if you lose everything you own, I'm still getting paid.
 
9.8% claimed unemployment rate.
Nationally, if laid-off workers who have settled for part-time work or have given up looking for new jobs are included, the unemployment rate rose to 17 percent.

And Freddy, stop misrepresenting the work of people infinitely smarter than yourself.
Mises says something very different than that- you'd understand these things if you weren't a raging, plagiarizing moron.
 
Conservatives, such as Ludwig von Mises, believe that Unemployment Insurance is Socialism. They believe it should be abolished and that the unemployed should be left to die of starvation or a lack of health care.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...tle=1060&chapter=104147&layout=html&Itemid=27

If you had actually read the claims von Mises was making instead of looking at the title alone, you would realize that is NOT what von Mises is arguing...
The fact that there exists in almost every country permanent mass unemployment is considered by public opinion as conclusive proof that Capitalism is incapable of solving the economic problem, and that therefore government interference, totalitarian planning and Socialism are necessary. And this argument is regarded as irrefutable when people realize that the only big country which does not suffer from the evils of unemployment is communist Russia. The logic of this argument however, is very weak. Unemployment in the capitalist countries is due to the fact that the policy both of the governments and of the trade unions aims at maintaining a level of wages which is out of harmony with the existing productivity of labour. It is true that as far as we can see there is no large scale unemployment in Russia. But the standard of living of the Russian worker is much lower than the standard of living of the unemployed dole receiver in the capitalist countries of the West. If the British or Continental workers were ready to accept wages which would indeed be lower than their present wages but which would still be several times higher than the wages of the Russian worker, unemployment would disappear in these countries too. Unemployment in the capitalist countries is not a proof of the insufficiency of the capitalist system, nor is the absence of unemployment in Russia a proof of the efficiency of the communist system. But the fact that there is unemployment as a mass phenomenon in almost every capitalist country is nevertheless the most formidable menace to the continuance of the capitalist system. Permanent mass unemployment destroys the moral foundations of the social order. The young people, who, having finished their training for work, are forced to remain idle, are the ferment out of which the most radical political movements are formed. In their ranks the soldiers of the coming revolutions are recruited.

This indeed is the tragedy of our situation. The friends of trade unionism and of the policy of unemployment doles honestly believe that there is no way to ensure the maintenance of fair conditions of life for the masses other than the policy of the trade unions. They do not see that in the long run all efforts to raise wages above a level corresponding to the market reflection of the marginal productivity of the labour concerned must lead to unemployment, and that in the long run unemployment doles can have no other effect than the perpetuation of unemployment. They do not see that the remedies which they recommend for the relief of the victims—doles and public works—lead to consumption of capital, and that finally capital consumption necessitates a lowering of the wage level still further. Under present conditions it is clear that it would not be feasible to abolish the dole and the other less important provisions for the relief of the unemployed, public works and so on, at one single stroke. It is indeed one of the principal drawbacks of every kind of interventionism that it is so difficult to reverse the process—that its abolition gives rise to problems which it is almost impossible to solve in a completely satisfactory way. At the present day the great problem of statesmanship is how to find a way out of this labyrinth of interventionist measures. For what has been done in recent years has been nothing else than a series of attempts to conceal the effects of an economic policy which has lowered the productivity of labour. What is now needed is first of all a return to a policy which ensures the higher productivity of labour. This includes clearly the abandonment of the whole policy of protectionism, import duties and quotas. It is necessary to restore to labour the possibility to move freely from industry to industry and from country to country.

It is not Capitalism which is responsible for the evils of permanent mass unemployment, but the policy which paralyses its working.

Where does von Mises claim that unemployment insurance is somehow socialism?

Also, it is wrong to characterize von Mises as a "Conservative". His views on this issue stem from his economic views; a school of thought called Austrian Economics. Von Mises is considered, in many ways, the most influencial thinker in Austrian economics.

His politics can be considered Classical Liberal or even pre-libertarian. But he was not a conservative. There really wasn't a conservative movement at that time (like it is know today).

For a "lawyer" who has a "masters" (bachelors?) in economics you are exceedingly uninformed on one of economic's most brilliant scholars (and oldest schools of thought) as well as being habitually sloppy in your support for you claims (when you choose to actually support them).
 
9.8% claimed unemployment rate.
Nationally, if laid-off workers who have settled for part-time work or have given up looking for new jobs are included, the unemployment rate rose to 17 percent.

.

Man thats alot of people
 
Where does von Mises claim that unemployment insurance is somehow socialism?
You need to acquaint yourself with von Mises' idea of "Destructionism."

Start by trying to figure out what he meant when he wrote that, "assistance of the unemployed has proved to be one of the most effective weapons of destructionism."
 
You need to acquaint yourself with von Mises' idea of "Destructionism."

Why don't you explain how that applies, and then maybe think about how Mises was a brilliant economist, not a politician.
 
You need to acquaint yourself with von Mises' idea of "Destructionism."[/B]

I am familiar with it. I also know that it is not synonymous with socialism.

Destructionism is a term used by Ludwig Von Mises, a classical liberal economist, to refer to policies that consume capital but does not accumulate it. Since accumulation of capital is the basis for economic progress (as the capital stock of society increases, its well-being also increases). Von Mises warned that pursuing socialist and etatist policies will eventually lead to destructionism (consumption and reliance on old capital) as these policies cannot create any new capital, instead only consuming the old.​

Socialism can (and more often then not, does) lead to destructionism, but they are not synonymous.

However, I had forgotten about that idea (my sister is the big Austrian economist in the family). Thanks for reminding me. That concept pretty well puts the final nail in the coffin of Foxpaws "government creates wealth" folly...

Here is an interesting quote from von Mises on destructionism and Marxist Socialism:
It is the history of Marxian Socialism which shows most clearly that every socialist policy must turn into destructionism...​
 

Members online

Back
Top