The New “Obama Job Plan”

Obama has yet another plan to save our economy. Really, it’s the same plan as always, he’s just found a new way to phrase it. He has called for increased spending on roads, schools, and blighted neighborhoods, as well as cuts in social security payroll taxes. More spending? Weren’t we like one F-16 away from going bankrupt this summer? How does he expect to pay for this shit? I’ll tell you how: by stealing your money. Obama’s proposal to pay for the “jobs” plan includes taxes on wealthier Americans, oil companies, and hedge fund managers. Or to put it another way, he plans to pay for it by declaring war on the upper class. So Obama wants to take some money from the rich and redistribute it among various government projects in hopess that it will be the magic pill to cure an ailing economy.

Sure, wealth redistribution sounded like a great idea for potato farmers in 19th century Russia, but it didn’t work there, or in Cuba, or anywhere else ever for that matter, so I don’t think it’s really the best policy for America’s economic recovery. But, Obama is a man of his word. And he has made a commitment to being progressive and if that means reusing economic theories that have been ineffective for over a century then by God he’s going to do it.

It seems like Barack hasn’t learned anything in the last four years. Despite numerous efforts in the form of “economic stimulus packages” the economy is in the same shape and the unemployment rate has continued to rise. So, in response to this, Obama is pushing yet another stimulus package. Third times a charm right? I don’t think so. And the obvious ineffectiveness of this plan isn’t the only issue. The deficit reduction super committee is trying to figure out how to cut $1.2 trillion by December 25, otherwise the automatic budget cuts will go into effect. To assist these debt efforts, Obama is demanding an additional $447 billion to fund his job’s package. So the people that own businesses and actually create jobs are going to be penalized to fund the creation of temporary and low paying jobs for infrastructure improvement.

All this sounds very similar to Roosevelt’s New Deal. I know that there’s a large perception that the New Deal was what brought the United States out of the great depression, but the evidence just isn’t there. The implementation of the government projects had little effect on the quantifiable measures of a country economic health. The only thing that got us out that depression is same thing that’s going to get us out of this one, TIME. Boom always follows bust. A nation’s economy is representative of a national consciousness and is too complex to be engineered by a federal government. Obama’s going to keep pushing his agenda until we vote his liberal ass out’ve office, so rally the troops for the GOP 2012.

  1. Frat Times at UF

    There’s a difference between taxes and wealth redistribution. Paying taxes is like paying dues in your fraternity: it’s what you owe to live in the best damn country in the world. I love my country, so I’ll do what I can to make it a better place and keep it as the top nation.

    Also, research your information a little better next time. The wealthiest of people decades ago paid a lot higher of a percentage of their income in taxes. And that was before the wealth distribution between the top percentile and the 50th percentile increased 20 times since 1979. Nice try though.

    13 years ago at 6:01 pm
    1. CrashIntoMe

      There’s also a big socialist difference between proportional and progressive taxation. ^Defending Obama. NF.

      13 years ago at 9:00 pm
    2. IvyFrat

      Get the fuck out.
      Yes, there’s a difference between wealth redistribution and taxation: wealth redistribution is what the government does with our taxes.

      Secondly, the fact that anyone can buy a microwave for $10, a car for $14k, and a computer for $250 means that the material wealth of the poorest is higher than it ever was in history. Wealth disparity doesn’t matter for shit.

      13 years ago at 11:39 pm
    3. jay fraterson

      Please.. The top 1% of Americans contribute 20% of all income tax revenue. The top 5% contributes 40%. Need it be higher and still maintain capitalistic ideals?

      P.S. The bottom 40% of American earners contribute <1%

      13 years ago at 3:08 am
    4. jay fraterson

      Funky and Frat Times, this website is obviously not aimed at you. Enjoy your hacky sacks and your Sociology degrees but remove yourself from this forum.

      13 years ago at 12:51 pm
    5. 3_9_1856

      The wealthiest paid a higher percentage of their income, but they have the resources to move their income offshore to escape taxation. The percentage of the total income tax the wealthy pay hasn’t really changed. Punishing productivity by taxing higher brackets at higher rates means there will be less productivity, which means a less robust economy.

      I wasn’t aware John Maynard Keynes himself had an account here…

      13 years ago at 3:43 pm
    6. Frat Times at UF

      I hate replying on something I already commented on it, but Fraterson sorry to say I’m a fair sided person with no political biases. Oh and I’m finance going into law, so yea I think I’m better off than you.

      13 years ago at 12:32 pm
    7. jay fraterson

      I wish I had a dollar for every half-ass lib that claims to be “unbiased” or “independent.” Oh yeah I’m finance too, retard. I just bought a new car with money I invested in the trough… “nice comeback though.”

      13 years ago at 3:41 pm
  2. PA_Bro

    Personally, I think Obama’s economic advisors are retards, and he sucks in general. Despite that, he is not adding taxes to oil companies, he is taking away some of the insane tax deductions they’re allowed to make. I honestly dont see whats wrong with taking away tax incentives to a multi billion dollar industry. The price of gas in the US is not high because we can’t drill it, it’s high because our oil refineries are old as shit, its impossible to build new ones because of pollution standards, and the old ones can’t keep up with our nation’s rising demand for oil. Either way, Obama sucks.

    13 years ago at 11:37 pm
    1. fratless is hopeless

      ^You lose all political arguments when you use the word “retards”. With that being said, we all know Obama and his political advisors are retards.

      13 years ago at 6:35 am
    2. mchampion

      Hey PA_Bro,

      You have a thing or two to learn about the Petroleum Industry. First of all, the reason gas prices are so high is because we import it from the very people that hate us the most! OPEC is a massive player when it comes to gas prices. The reason we do this (import) is because of big-government, tree-hugging regulations not letting us drill in many parts of our own country. For you to complain about gas prices, and encourage higher taxes on oil companies is mind-boggling. Please use your brain. Also, it’s not because our refineries are old, which they are, but they work fine. Building more won’t magically lower prices. When we need to build more, we will.

      13 years ago at 8:49 am
    3. Mward2002

      ^ Gas prices are also high because of speculation. Refineries are one thing, OPEC’s control of supply is another. If you removed oil from the commodities market, prices would come down a shit ton.

      13 years ago at 12:25 pm
    4. Cupid

      Most of our oil comes from our own country dipshit. We just blame the ragheads for high prices.

      13 years ago at 2:01 pm
    5. PA_Bro

      There hasnt been a new oil refinery built since 1976. Its impossible to get past the environmental regulations and “green activists” that are everywhere. Oil refineries only net about a 5% margin, and have been running at nearly 100% capacity since about 1998. Our oil needs rise every year, so you tell me how the fact that were using old plants and not building new ones doesnt contribute to the stark rise in oil prices since 2000.

      13 years ago at 7:01 pm
  3. FrataDelta

    Aside from the time factor, what truly brought us out of the Great Depression was World War 2. We prevented people from buying most consumer goods. This created a huge pent up demand for the first couple of years post war. Second, we put millions to work in the military and in the military industry. This gave people money but since we stopped making consumer products, didn’t give them anywhere to spend it. Then, we made it everyone’s patriotic duty to save via war bonds. So at the end of the war what do you have? You have millions of people who haven’t been able to buy a consumer good for four years and have basically saved every dime they have made during that time. That is a recipe for a boom. That is what got us out of the depression.

    13 years ago at 5:37 am
    1. funkyd04

      ^^ THis. And the fact that every allied nation owed us retarded amounts of cash for munitions and aid. WW2 is what made us the best nation in the world. Every other country was invaded and devastated while ours simply grew. I say we do it again.

      13 years ago at 11:30 am
    2. ThadCastle

      ^ I really tried but couldn’t think of something witty enough in response to your stupid ass comment.

      13 years ago at 4:27 pm
    3. TFM Police of Police

      ^^ Fuck you. The obvious logic is that if we started a world war we would be the “Germany” of World War II. Look what those World Wars did for their country! They ran the world until then. The undermining logic here is that you, sir, are a fucking idiot.

      13 years ago at 9:48 am
    4. ShotsonDeck

      Having every other major industrialized nation in ruins is a great way to have a huge demand for your goods and have negligible competition. Pent up demand is kind of a stupid argument. Massive inflows of repayment from debtor countries and hegemony status in every major industry are much better explanations for the 17 year boom that happened after the war. Funkyd04 is correct. Except I don’t really know how much a ‘retarded’ amount of cash is.

      13 years ago at 10:24 am
    1. Bronan the Barbarian

      Literally the worst ticket I can think of. Do you want to win an election, or give Jon Stewart material for the next 10 years to work off of? Both of them are unelectable outside of the south. Hell, I’m a republican and I wouldn’t vote for them. Gingrich is an old hypocrite and Ryan is a fucking objectivist. The man believes in Rand’s terribly misguided gospel of personal greed, which requires rational self-interest to work.

      Objectivism: it’s communism, for conservatives.

      13 years ago at 2:18 pm
    2. Bronan the Barbarian

      “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” is the battle cry of the terminally stupid.

      13 years ago at 5:35 pm
    3. IvyFrat

      And Bronan would be a liberal 30 years ago, when the GOP didn’t bloat into a big government whore.

      13 years ago at 8:29 pm
    4. Bronan the Barbarian

      Perry- Rubio is certainly a better ticket, though with his debate showings and rabid fundamentalism, I question his national electability and skills for handling large public addresses under pressure.

      Ivyfrat, just because I think objectivism is just as much voodoo and bullshit as communism is and I refuse to sell my positions on issues out to the religious nuts that have so unceremoniously hi-jacked my party, that does not make me a liberal. Here’s a hint: if not agreeing lockstep with the party platform makes you a liberal and deserving of criticism from the party, than the republican party is, and should be, doomed. That’s just undemocratic in both intention and spirit. Maybe your chapter has something on that in the oath you took when you joined. You should read up on that.

      13 years ago at 12:16 pm
    5. IvyFrat

      You’re right. We shouldn’t reform medicare nor should we balance the budget. Way to be an independent thinker. You alone support deficit spending and the status quo, you eccentric compassionate conservative.

      You really don’t believe in rational self-interest? You think people make decisions on whims and emotions? You may want to re-evaluate your political leanings.

      13 years ago at 8:58 pm
    1. Bronan the Barbarian

      Eh, I’m pretty sure the Civil War ranks higher on that list, sport.

      13 years ago at 5:35 pm
  4. CandC

    Holy shit OP, try not to be so biased you sound like fucking Fox News.

    Taxes aren’t stealing money. We all use government conveniences every day. Pay for them, because without them our country wouldn’t even exist in its own right. Taxing more by closing loopholes and raising rates slightly isn’t a war on the upper class, it’s morally right. I’m sorry you’re barely above the “rich” line, so you can barely afford the increases in tax. I’ll be just fine.

    Russia and Cuba were communist, and it’s a very different thing that they did compared to *gasp* raising taxes.

    The stimulus propped up the shitty companies that continue to be a burden on this society and that most people here do business with, so I’m not sure why you’re complaining about it.

    For Christ’s sake, quit fucking calling the rich “job creators.” It’s a completely empty, useless name. They don’t create jobs any better than anybody else with startup money can. And why the hell are you COMPLAINING that infrastructure’s going to be improved? Are you an idiot?

    Frankly, the New Deal was fairly beneficial to the economy considering the direct unemployment decrease it brought about. Saying otherwise is talking out of your ass.

    13 years ago at 6:27 pm
    1. Fratalina1856

      ^^Your line of reasoning does not resonate with this demographic. Why is it so acceptable to liberals for so many people in this country to pay no taxes at all? I’d much rather not pay more in taxes when my realized benefits are not going to improve whatsoever. Not to mention the amount of money from welfare and Medicaid the poor already waste. Let’s just give ’em more! Priceless reasoning CandC.

      13 years ago at 9:56 pm
    2. Caligufrat

      Carolina Charm: So far, you have added nothing but insult to debates going on in this thread. Either contribute something useful or be quite and let the men talk.

      CandC, Frat on good sir.

      A quote from The Economist sums up my view on the issue perfectly:

      America is currently on course for the most stringent fiscal tightening of any big economy in 2012, as temporary tax cuts and unemployment insurance expire at the end of this year. That could change if Congress came to its senses, passed Barack Obama’s jobs plan and agreed on a medium-term deficit-reduction deal by November. If Democrats and Republicans fail to hash out a compromise on the deficit, draconian spending cuts will follow in 2013. For all the tirades against the Europeans, America’s economy risks being pushed into recession by its own fiscal policy—and by the fact that both parties are more interested in positioning themselves for the 2012 elections than in reaching the compromises needed to steer away from that hazardous course.

      13 years ago at 11:30 am
    3. FratrickBatemen

      This is so goddamn idiotic I didn’t think it warranted a response but I can’t hold it in any longer. We are not protesting the existence of the federal government, we are protesting an increasingly intrusive and unnecessarily large government that is treating it’s most successful citizens like a piggy bank to fund their ineffecient, nonsensical and poorly run programs. Between the health care plan, the failed stimulus plan and the calls for higher taxes Obama has taken a clearly anti-business stance, which is an obvious detrement from economic growth. You fucking liberals seem to think that large goverment and catering to the losers of society is the ideal. Bullshit. Let the private sector thrive and ensure that those who deserve to be wealthy earn it themselves.

      13 years ago at 7:58 pm
    1. FratrickBatemen

      So true. The sad part is that we were still stupid enough to elect that liberal fuck Jim Himes to represent us.

      13 years ago at 7:42 pm