Obama: Everything in this Bill Will Be Paid For

[Cobra Commander]

Sure there is. We don't need to rule the world, just regulate our own industry better. If it was better for profits to hire Americans than it would be done. Right now, obviously, they can pay someone fifty cents a day or something in China rather than pay someone a livable wage here. There ought to be penalties for that. They'll only understand when it hurts their wallet. Become a protectionist economy, rather than embracing free trade.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

Actually, Republicans and some Democrats won't settle on the Government ruling corporations like that. But what can be done is allowing foreign companies to further explore out-sourcing into the American public. We're out-sourcing to other countries, and many others are out-sourcing to us. Then we get jobs building Toyota's and Hyundai's, as well as being telemarketer's and tech-support for people in Europe and Asia.
American owned, made by China. Chinese Owned, made by America. Yay Jobs! lol

[aether]

And that is the major problem living within a decent democratic society industry just cannot handle paying alot of people a minimum wage hence why they out-source. So if you want to keep your industry take away your human rights and work like slaves

[TheAsterisk!]

We wont and as for who's paying for it, that'd be me and everyone else who pays taxes.

Actually, given how the Federal Reserve likes to print money and slowly drive inflation whenever- well, just whenever- it's not just everyone who pays formalized taxes, but it also includes everyone who uses U.S. currency.

[Arrisu]

Actually, Republicans and some Democrats won't settle on the Government ruling corporations like that. But what can be done is allowing foreign companies to further explore out-sourcing into the American public. We're out-sourcing to other countries, and many others are out-sourcing to us. Then we get jobs building Toyota's and Hyundai's, as well as being telemarketer's and tech-support for people in Europe and Asia.
American owned, made by China. Chinese Owned, made by America. Yay Jobs! lol

That wouldn't be beneficial for cooperations and businesses in China, since the currency is totally not on the same level as America. It would be more expensive to out-source to America, for Chinese businesses. I agree with Cobra Commander. America should only use american citizens for large businesses or else face heavy, HEAVY taxes.

Otherwise you guys can always immagrate here, in Canada. n_n

[Skilero]

It's Keynesian economics. Love it or hate it, it works.

An issue with a lot of Modern-day Keynesian theorists:

The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money[/U], Chapter 22 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...ry/ch22.htm#iv )]

Moreover, I should readily concede that the wisest course is to advance on both fronts at once. Whilst aiming at a socially controlled rate
of investment with a view to a progressive decline in the marginal efficiency of capital, I should support at the same time all sorts of
policies for increasing the propensity to consume. For it is unlikely that full employment can be maintained, whatever we may do about
investment, with the existing propensity to consume. There is room, therefore, for both policies to operate together; — to promote
investment and, at the same time, to promote consumption, not merely to the level which with the existing propensity to consume would
correspond to the increased investment, but to a higher level still.

Keynes supported policies that encourage people to consume. How do you create effective policies that encourage people to spend money on products at 'a higher level' than those policies that invest in the economy? What sort of policy generates private-sector consumption to such an effect? Keynes' beliefs aren't incorrect in the quoted statement, but they've been misinterpreted by contemporary Keynesian economists and believers. It is the "wisest course" to "advance on both fronts at once", so why is it that Keynesian policy is being defined as just spending money on the economy (albeit spending without keeping up with 'propensity to consume')? That, as it stands, is not the wisest economic course - even for Keynes himself.
--------------------------

So President Obama's jobs bill does have tax cuts, which engages a propensity to consume in the economy (However, tax cuts weren't offered up much, if at all, in the previous stimulus measures presented by the Obama administration. We should not assume that Keynes would've been encouraged by the acts. I digress - we can't do anything about the past and can only work towards the future with what we have now.); but does the propensity of consumption in the U.S. economy - including the factor of tax cuts - exceed the rate of investment going into the economy out of this bill?

As I deduce, this bill places significant importance in a newly-formed sect of government - a 'National Infrastructure Bank'. This will be a major component of the 'investment' factor of this bill.

Taking into account what Keynes had said before about consumption propensity in the economy: How long will the tax cuts from this bill last for? And given that, will this Infrastructure Bank simply dissolve soon after these tariff breaks are spent? Because if the spending isn't directly related to and measured against the amount of tax cuts, then the bill could easily fail - not only on my own beliefs, but according to Keynes' judgement of a 'wise' course as well.

I'd also like for it to be recognized that this is all under the premise that we simply have no room to change our laws for businesses or industry in the United States. Quite obviously, a number of things can be changed in the United States economy's management to encourage consumption that can work with the investment presented by the bill - adding a much higher chance of success for this jobs bill. Such things should actually be supplementary to the bill, because solely in them may a prospective recovery for the economy be possible.

As it stands, this bill could either fix many problems in the U.S. economy or need to be repealed to prevent it from doing nothing to the economy and sucking the government's money into a black pit. It's how these debates around the bill are handled that decide the true outcome.

Notice: I'm assuming that outlines I've read of the bill from various media sources and the government itself are accurate. Obviously, the common provisions that are snuck into the bill will have to be weeded out, and the basis of my argument is centered around the core of this bill and not said provisions.