Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


What Obama’s jobs plan would mean to Minnesota

President Barack Obama speaking about his jobs bill at Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School in Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday.
REUTERS/Larry Downing
President Barack Obama speaking about his jobs bill at Fort Hayes Arts and Academic High School in Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (12)

  1. Submitted by Norman Larson on 09/14/2011 - 11:02 am.

    President Obama said his proposal is fully paid for. The Republicans say he’s doing so by raising taxes on the rich. What’s the truth?

  2. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 09/14/2011 - 11:47 am.

    “House Speaker John Boehner laid out the Republican case against the bill on Tuesday: “We see permanent tax increases put into effect in order to pay for temporary spending. I just don’t think that’s going to help our economy.”

    Why not? It might help pay down our debt. I thought you were for that, Mr. Boehner. I thought you and your fellows were quite loud about how our economy can only be improved by capping our debt. Perhaps you lied?

  3. Submitted by Jerry Mayeux on 09/14/2011 - 12:20 pm.

    Consider the Connection to:
    The Economic Pyramid CTC3
    Conservation is the wise-use, management & development of the Earths natural resources, including the wise-use of CONSUMER (taxpayer) money. revenue is needed to strenghten the economy!!!
    Please visit my Facebook Wall. Jerry Lee Mayeux

  4. Submitted by Gail O'Hare on 09/14/2011 - 02:06 pm.

    #1 I think Obama’s position is that his proposals don’t include new taxes and that reduced deductions wouldn’t be new taxes. He’s also included a number of incentives in the way of deductions for businesses hiring the unemployed and creating new jobs.

    I think he did recognize that the Super Congress might raise its goal in order to cover his proposals, so indirectly that might include new revenue. It was a complex set of proposals that I think hasn’t been analyzed well im most media.

    I’m unclear about whether he is urging one bill that would do all that he has proposed or whether pieces – such as extending uenemployment benefits – could be passed immediately. We are morally obligated to do everything possible to return to the workforce all those who were cast adrift by their employers in the wake of the criminal recklessness leading to the Great Recession. Obama’s bill reognizes that imperative.

  5. Submitted by Rosalind Kohls on 09/14/2011 - 02:38 pm.

    In addition to the cost of Stimulus II, Obama’s newest version of a jobs act, many Republicans object to it because Stimulus I didn’t work. Unemployment is worse now than it was in 2009. If it didn’t work in 2009, why should we expect it to work in 2011?

  6. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 09/14/2011 - 02:45 pm.

    Apparently tax increases now include the elimination of deductions or exemptions. Anything that does not “starve the beast” of government to the right is a “tax increase.” Unless of course it’s a “fee increase” like right winger Pawlenty put on “government services” in which case it’s not.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master–that’s all.”

    Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass”

  7. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 09/14/2011 - 03:18 pm.

    The Obama job’s plan would mean more union jobs to fund the Obama re-election campaign.

    At least he is not using the term “shovel ready.”

  8. Submitted by craig furguson on 09/14/2011 - 03:46 pm.

    If they pass it without the tax increases, the super committee gets to deal with it. If the super committee can’t deal with the cost, then 1/2 comes from domestic spending-non medicare and 1/2 comes from defense. I think it’s pretty bad when they are using social security revenue for stimulus, they’ll kill that program when the revenue is not reinstated. Squeeze it and drown it in a bathtub.

  9. Submitted by chuck holtman on 09/14/2011 - 04:50 pm.

    Ms Kohls (#5): If in fact unemployment is worse now than it was in 2009, how is this evidence that the stimulus didn’t work? Wouldn’t the proper comparison be the level of unemployment now with or without the stimulus? Also, many progressives and economists faulted the stimulus, in advance, as being too small to trigger a structural positive readjustment of economic activity and money flows. If this is correct, then wouldn’t the lesson of the stimulus be not that we should forego a jobs program now, but rather that we should take care that it be substantial enough, no?

  10. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 09/14/2011 - 06:14 pm.

    Obama’s plan raises funds from the private sector to pay for union jobs in the public sector.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

  11. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 09/14/2011 - 07:41 pm.

    Rosalind (#4). The 2009 stimulus plan DID work until the money ran out. Tens of thousands of jobs were saved or created, and tens of thousands more could have been and could have been permanent if the Republican Congress weren’t tied to ideology INSTEAD OF the common good.

    They’re only interested in killing all governmental regulation because it’s so “onerous” that companies feel they cannot increase hiring –a bare-faced attempt to increase profits for their corporate friends by removing all the protections from bad food and drugs, unsafe working conditions, crooked bankers and environmental destruction.

    The new jobs plan is similarly too small because the Right refuses to raise the revenue necessary to rescue our economy from collapse.

  12. Submitted by Kyle Thomas on 09/15/2011 - 09:09 am.

    Bernice –

    Can you site some actual scientifc evidence to your claim that the stimulus worked? And not a left wing blog or columnist. Some actual non partisan economic data to prove your claim.

Leave a Reply