Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama can't create many jobs without Congress' help, analysts say

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 03:37 AM
Original message
Obama can't create many jobs without Congress' help, analysts say
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/04/2389965/obama-can...

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's own job may be on the line as he presents his plan for job creation this week, with the nation's unemployment rate mired at 9.1 percent and his popularity at a record low.

He'll call on Congress to back him on a package of proposals that the White House says will put Americans back to work. Earlier this summer he tried to rally public pressure on Congress to do as he wished, and he may do so again, exercising his power of the bully pulpit. Last week he threatened to bash Republicans on the campaign trail if they fail to follow his lead.

But Republicans in Congress are dead set against any big new spending program, and they control the House of Representatives, so the prospect of no big new jobs program rolling out of Washington before 2013 looms large.

In light of that, is there anything else Obama can do on his own to spur job creation?

*more at link*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
shintao Donating Member (288 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Party of NO, and Do Whatever it Takes
I know voters are assumed to be stupid, but don't they see the manipulation of the rightwing? Do they need a sledge hammer in the smacker to get the message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. Yes, and apparently the sledgehammer is needed on certain internet discussion boards as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 04:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. There's a lot he can do without Congress - FDIC can break up these
too big to fail banks that are simply walking corpses with a bunch of paper bullshit on their books. Take Citi and BOA and break them down to state or regional levels - there's 10,000 jobs there created mostly in middle & upper management since the branches are already staffed. And we take down some of the risk to the rest of the economy these "even bigger than they were before the last time" entities

Have DOJ start throwing these banksters in jail - if what they do is so needed, the "market" (everyone pause for a moment of silent reverence) will require that position to be filled, so there's new hires there.

Use the VA/FHA/Fannie/Freddie - take all the properties they own, start renting them out to people who need affordable housing - first come, first serve - rent is 30% of income. Put people to work repairing the ones that aren't currently habitable. Use rents to finance the rest - real estate/construction jobs have always led us out of recession, these won't last forever, but they'll prime that pump.

None of those require Congressional approval - the laws have already been passed that these agencies have the authority.
None of these require Congressional money - the bankster stuff is left up the invisible hand the GOP claims can cure all ills. The housing agencies already have the legal authority to do whatever repairs are needed to protect the value of the governments property.

Alright, that's basically top of head - surely he's got advisers who can come up with more.

Then he can start playing hardball - introduce a standalone bill for $5,000,000,000 in new Veterans spending - homeless prevention, hospital upgrades, etc (whatever the actual figure VA gives him). Then go on TV with a couple wounded vets and ask everyone to call their Congress to pass that funding - do the full blown patriotic pitch, even the Teabaggers can't resist that one. Support the troops and all that - well, not if they actually had to risk anything but they'll be outraged at the pictures from some of the current VA facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 04:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. There is a lot he can do.
He should have started doing when he had a house and senate full of Democratic politicians. He should have changed the rules on filibusters and he would have been able to do almost anything he needed to do. But of course he didn't. I think it was more a matter of him not having the will to do any real progressive actions to address unemployment. If he had started the work when he 1st got into office, he would have been a whole lot better off today.

He had his chance and he blew it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newfie11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I have never understood why he didn't change the filibuster rules when he could have
At that time he had the house and senate. It seems so odd that it wasn't done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. That is the million dollar question. Why didn't he??????..
That would have been a first priority for me because it was the stumbling block to passing most anything.

It makes no sense to have let that stand unchallenged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Only the Senate can change the fillibuster rule
Obama has no say in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. No President can change the rules of the Senate.
Only the Senate itself can do that. Blame them, not President Obama, for that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Senate rules are changed on a majority vote. Nor is the "fillibuster" mentioned in the Constitution
Not contradicting you, but let's get ALL the info out there, shall we? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I understand how the rules work. The only thing I'm addressing
is the President's role in Senate rules. It is non-existent. I'm just sticking to the subject. Senate rules can be changed by majority vote, but only at the beginning of the session. Later, it's harder to do so. Filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution. You are correct about that. What is mentioned is that the Senate makes its own rules. The President has no say in the matter. That's by intent and is all part of the separation of powers.

Getting ALL the information out there would require a book. This is DU. I'm not writing a book here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Blah blah blah. The Democratic Senate has no desire to change the fillibuster. Fact.
That's the ugly truth. All the rest is deflection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Whatever you say. Look at the title of this subthread.
Edited on Sun Sep-04-11 08:49 AM by MineralMan
This subthread is about the President and his power to do things. You can try to make it about something else, but you'll have to find someone else to play with. I'll stick to the subthread's subject. In some other thread, I'll write about the subject of that thread. You may do as you please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
22. The title of the subthread ain't "defense of the status quo", so my point is relevant. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newfie11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. I guess it was by Constitutional Option
That I was thinking about. I has seen where this might be considered early on but it did not work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Umm, because he doesn't have a friggin' MAGIC WAND that would do that?
what you think the President can just do whatever he wants? Maybe he could just expand the Senate to 200 senators and personally appoint 100 progressives to those new seats while he's about it? Gee, why not? And the same for the House of Representatives! Then he could get whatever bill he wants through!

No wonder the 'Left' is so angry with Obama, I guess if I didn't have a clue I would also think he can just do whatever the hell he wants.*

:banghead:

* (maybe they should think about actually electing a majority of 'progressive' reps and senators so that we COULD get legislation through ... but wait ... that's actually work, and it's actually difficult ...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newfie11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Thanks for the snark!
Bye Bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
26. I didn't know a President could change Senate rules.
I guess all it takes is an executive order?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. exactly.
Edited on Sun Sep-04-11 05:07 AM by ixion
His plan was yet another lame one; To instruct Federal agencies to think of something.


Way to lose another round, Obama. :eyes:

This guy gets more disappointing by the day, seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
5. Yet somehow job-killing 'freetrade' agreements have no trouble. Maybe the issue is Obama's *WILL*
to create jobs. He can't create ANY if he doesn't fight for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
6. Nah, Obama is teh dictator that has a date with a man!!! /sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. The ONLY things the President is in charge in is a) War; b) "Free Trade"; c) Bankster bonuses.
Oh, and d) making us buy insurance from private corporation.

Other than that, he's powerless!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NightWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
13. Poor ol Obama, he can't do anything. He's so helpless
But he expanded the wars
But he's allowing the Tar Sands Pipeline
But he's prosecuting whistleblowers
But he's deported record number of illegals

Obama just can't do anything WE want. He gets what Big Money wants done, but plays the Helpless card and gives in (98%) to repukes when it's something for We The People.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 09:14 AM
Response to Original message
21. If he says pretty please.
Be complimentary, be positive, be conciliatory, be forgiving, be accommodating, be generous, be understanding!

Never show anger or passion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
23. He can't create jobs when we dont manufacture anything here in America.
Edited on Sun Sep-04-11 09:36 AM by NorthCarolina
From Wikipedia:

The "giant sucking sound" was United States Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful phrase for what he believed would be the negative effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he opposed.

The phrase, coined during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign, referred to the sound of U.S. jobs heading south for Mexico should the proposed free-trade agreement go into effect.

Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.


The rest is History.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
24. No, but he can rally the 70 million people who worked for him in 08
by the leading charge against Teabagonomics. Start bashing Bush and the 2001-2007 Congress that got us into this mess. If 90 million or so people started marching, Congress would move. But without a leader and with no media presence, the vast majority of this country, who want changes, won't get them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-11 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. That would work for me but I have no hope of Obama confronting the problem.
I worked for him in 2008 will vote largely to preserve a rational ballance on the Supreme Court. I work phone banks no more nor do I donate a cent to any Obama campaign without a massive shift in the message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC