Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats strategize on adding a jobs agenda to Super Congress (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  5.5% by 2014 does not seem feasible... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    supercereal, filby, Supavash

    But it does seem like a good starting point, given the Republican negotiating tactics as of late. Then again, it's hard to negotiate for "less jobs" and still manage to convince a large portion of gullible voters that you're helping them. (Of course, creating said jobs costs money up front, so they'll just push back there.)

    •  Heck, set the goal at 5.5% (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phil S 33, psykos, Bob Duck, smiley7, Supavash

      if we only get to 7.5%, have we "failed"?

      "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by bear83 on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:40:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My only concern... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bear83, Supavash that based on Republican tactics, the end result will be a "bi-partisan compromise" that promises to increase unemployment to 20% by 2014. :)

        But in more seriousness, I agree this is a good idea. Pushing it as a percentage makes it even better, even though the hard dollar numbers will become the point of contention. If we got to 7.5%, as you said, it's certainly not a failure.

        Polls show that Americans across party lines agree we should raise, not just Democrats. And everyone wants to create jobs. (For definitions of "everyone" that do not include corporation-people in them.) This is an excellent way to push a job agenda.

    •  Putting a man on the moon doesn't seem feasible (7+ / 0-)

      But we did it. Too bad the National Will is lost.

      August 16, 2011: Rick Perry will win the Presidency in 2012.

      by NoFortunateSon on Fri Aug 19, 2011 at 01:50:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say it was a bad idea :) (0+ / 0-)

        This is more as if they said "we're going to put a man on Mars" back then. And settling for the moon.

        Of course, putting a man on Mars back then wouldn't have been feasible, but if the current set of Republicans were in office, it might have been a good starting point to negotiate from!

        Although, in those days it seems like even conservative politicians realized that science is a useful thing that actually exists.

    •  I think it is feasible. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bob Duck

      Increased government spending is out. But Americans had $7.9 trillion invested in 401K and IRA funds in 2010. They are now saving around 5% of their income. But the stock market is a pretty creepy place to invest right now and probably for a while. So why not let them divert some of these savings into an infrastructure bond that would pay a tax-free yield slightly higher than a T bill? Essentially, it would be like a Liberty Bond in WW2. It would not come out of today's budget because they would be 10-year bonds. The interest rate would be low but more than recouped by the stimulatory effect of the fund as the money was used to rebuild infrastructure, expand retraining and make us more energy efficient. I would think that a fund of over $1 trillion could be built and funneled primarily through State and Local Governments. The beauty of this is that it would be money Americans have already saved and are saving. I am sure there are lots of why's and wherefore's in all this, but why can't we use our own savings to save our own country?

      •  This is an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bob Duck

        excellent idea.  Especially if it's backed by the 'full faith and credit....etc.  And make it available to corporations as well.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site