A Reminder: 300 Economists Warn Obama to focus on Jobs, not the Deficit

[woo me with science]

Thanks to chill-wind for the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x560332

[OHdem10]

1. didn'tcha know--The Private Sector creates jobs and do not

expect anything more. Someone might accuse them
of being socialists.

[woo me with science]

2. Well the private sector is doing a bang-up job so far, huh?

Flat jobs data signal weakest recovery in decades
What recovery? Unemployment remains high and jobs scarce 2 years after Great Recession ended

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Flat-jobs-data-signal-weakest-apf-2182606890.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=

[vaberella]

3. The Legislative body creates jobs----neither are focusing. n/t

[vaberella]

4. To the OP---you do realize Is the legislative body that is supposed create jobs.

They have the power to invest money into shovel ready jobs and creating more money like the stimulus bill to enforce and build the labor force. Instead, they aren't doing that and Obama is getting the flack for a worthless Congress. Even people here are not realizing the major power Congress has.

[woo me with science]

7. He seems to feel that deficit reduction should come first.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president


I mean, the infrastructure bank that we’ve proposed is relatively small. But could we imagine a project where we’re rebuilding roads and bridges and ports and schools and broadband lines and smart grids, and taking all those construction workers and putting them to work right now? I can imagine a very aggressive program like that that I think the American people would rally around and would be good for the economy not just next year or the year after, but for the next 20 or 30 years.

But we can’t even have that conversation if people feel as if we don't have our fiscal house in order. So the idea here is let’s act now. Let’s get this problem off the table. And then with some firm footing, with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future.

[ProSense]

5. That's from September 2010. Here's

something the President did last September.

[woo me with science]

6. Please explain to me why this economic advice would have changed.

Here's something from now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x707605

[ProSense]

8. Maybe

Obama pushes for infrastructure bank proposal after debt deal (today)

...you should ask Congress why its dragging it's feet.

[gkhouston]

9. We're supposed to count on money from the banks to filter down

and help us out? 'Cause that has worked so well in the past.

[ProSense]

10. What? n/t

[gkhouston]

12. It's loans for projects, not direct funding for projects.

They're likely to happen about as quickly as mortgages are getting re-financed. To seriously recover from this depression, we need to invest in the country, not "make loans". When we go to war, we throw money down a rathole like there's no tomorrow. We're not setting up a "war bank" to loan money to the DoD. That tells you something about our priorities.

[ProSense]

16. No

it's a government run agency similar to the TVA.

[woo me with science]

11. So the advice is not outdated, then?

You now seem to be changing your argument and suggesting that the President is merely being blocked from doing what the economists warn is necessary. Is that right?

Then why is the President arguing so strongly that we need to eat our peas and have spending and benefit cuts first in order to get "a solid fiscal situation"? Even if Congress won't pass the infrastructure programs he wants, why would he use the bully pulpit to argue the effectiveness of a policy that 300 economists warn will be bad for the economy?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president


I mean, the infrastructure bank that we’ve proposed is relatively small. But could we imagine a project where we’re rebuilding roads and bridges and ports and schools and broadband lines and smart grids, and taking all those construction workers and putting them to work right now? I can imagine a very aggressive program like that that I think the American people would rally around and would be good for the economy not just next year or the year after, but for the next 20 or 30 years.

But we can’t even have that conversation if people feel as if we don't have our fiscal house in order. So the idea here is let’s act now. Let’s get this problem off the table. And then with some firm footing, with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future.

He says quite clearly here that cutting spending and benefits will give us the "solid fiscal situation" we need, *before* we can do infrastructure and jobs. How does that possibly make sense?

[hfojvt]

15. you might want to ask how many jobs have been created since September

hint (it's over 1.1 million)

edit, what the hell, a link http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/155

[21st Century FDR]

13. If Obama gave a shit about what actual economists thought

He wouldn't take advice from the likes of Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Ghoulsbee or Bernanke.

[woo me with science]

14. I agree. nt