The modern presidency, with all the powers Congress has given it, means the president has a part to play in the process. The House has sent several bills that he pledged were DOA. He has offered no counter.

Congess is responsible for everything now Abgemacht?
Obama can just sit back and demand "bills to help our economy" and not put forth any concrete suggestions and he has fulfilled his leadership obligations to the country.

I guess when a President is economically inept that would be a desirable model to put forth.

Does Obama get to take credit for what Congress does if the economy gets better?
Does Obama take any of the blame for what Congress does if the economy gets worse?
Do bother branches of the legislature have equal responsibility?

You have to ask these kind of questions when all of a sudden the Presidency is on the sidelines and "Congress is the branch that's supposed to be legislating after all."

I wonder why JFK put forth a legislative agenda, the New Frontier? Didn't he know that "Congress is the branch that's supposed to be legislating after all?"
I wonder why Reagan called for a massive tax cut as President that the Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neil, denounced? Didn't he know that "Congress is the branch that's supposed to be legislating after all?"

abge: "I'm not sure why people are giving Obama so much shit for taking a back seat to congress *on some issues*." [Emphasis added]

TC: "Congess is responsible for everything now Abgemacht?"


OK, clearly this conversation isn't going to go anywhere productive....

It could have something to do with the fact that over half of Congress won't touch something if he's endorsed it ...

But seriously, he has made proposals. There was one in particular that involved making an infrastructure bank - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07obama.html

You'll notice he proposed that a while ago, no action has happened yet. He's still pushing for it, though - http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-and-roads/170681-obama-pushes-for-infrastructure-bank-proposal-after-debt-deal

I doubt you'll like it, but there's an answer for you.

Abgemacht, I could have told you the conversation wasn't productive as soon as you posted "Congress is the branch that's supposed to be legislating after all?"

When someone posts something preposterous like that you just demolish it so the conversation can go somewhere.

Like "what is Obama's economic policy" for instance.
All you did was post that "Congress is the branch that's supposed to be legislating after all?"'

You can go not that you pointless red herring is exposed for what it is abgemacht.

Sarge, I love your post.
I went and read the article published in September of 2010.
The fact that the proposal was made in September of 2010 and didn't get passed when Congress was controlled completely by the Democrats in both houses blows a giant hole in your statement "Congress won't touch something if he endorses it."

You might want to prepare your posts a little more carefully.

It is a perfect example of Obama's economic policy.

Here is a perfect statement right out of the NYT article you linked to
".....a six-year plan that would cost tens of billions of dollars and create a government-run bank....."

Where do those tens of billions come from? We have an annual deficit of over $1 Trillion and a debt of over $15 Trillion and Obama's economic ideas are to add to the annual deficit and accumulated debt with another massive government program.

It will sure create jobs-government jobs that are inefficient and bloated compared to the private sector.
The postal service is a great example of a government run enterprise.
How about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as example of government involvement in banking.

I stand by my assertion that Republicans won't touch something if Obama proposed it. Take for example the S.T.A.R.T. treaty - something that ordinarily wouldn't be super controversial. Senator Lugar from Indiana, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican (and whom I voted for), ridiculed his colleagues for playing politics with national defense on the issue.

The 2009-2010 Congress saw a lot of bills pass the House only to get mired in the Senate, where the Democrats needed 60 votes to pass anything. I doubt they'd let a jobs program through that would improve the economy during a Democratic president's term.

But anyways, you asked for a plan. I gave you one, there are others. I said you probably wouldn't like it.

By the way, the way I understood it, the bank could be funded by getting corporate profits moved from overseas. Give them tax deferment on these profits as long as they invest them in this bank, which will in turn issue the loans that our larger, more useless banks are afraid to - loans to small businesses, etc. I'm sure there are other ideas.

We're not going to agree on deficit spending, I am sure of that. But short term deficits don't equal long term deficits, and working to lower unemployment will help the long-term deficit.

Where did you make an assertion in your first post "that Republicans won't touch something if Obama proposed it."

The word "Republican" isn't even in your first post anywhere.

You don't need 60 votes to pass something in the Senate.
Obamacare was passed in the Senate with less than 60 votes.

I love the infrastructure bank as an example of Obama's economic policy.
It is exactly what the Big Government loving Barack loves.

Your explanation of funding the bank "by getting corporation profits moved from overseas" is quit a vague and ambiguous statement.
Does that mean raising taxes on corporations so that they would get a "tax deferment" by "investing" in the infrastructure bank?
So the infrastructure bank would pay interest on deposits? I guess that's what you mean when you say corporations would "invest" in the bank.
Investments pay dividends or interest.
Where would the money come from to pay dividends or interest, or is your use of the word "invest" inaccurate?

"Short term deficits don't equal long term deficits" is a rather invalid statement don't you think when you don't explain what pays off the short term deficits.

I guess you don't realize that you are borrowing Peter to pay Paul in this proposal.

We already had a stimulus plan of over $850 Billion dollars for "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects passed in the spring of 2009.
How is the infrastructure bank any different than this?
We still have over 9% unemployment after the $850 Billion dollar stimulus for infrastructure.
If the first stimulus didn't reduce unemployment why would this infrastructure bank do so?

Sarge,

It would be really easy if you would just say what you are tap dancing around.

Obama wants to dramatically raises corporate taxation to fund a new, multi-billion dollar government program intended to fund infrastructure projects which you and Obama claim will decrease unemployment.

I would simply point out that the New Deal proposed the exact same solution to unemployment in the Depression by creating the CCC-Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA-Works Progress Administration, the PWA-the Public Works Administration, the CWA-the Civilian Works Administration, and the TVA-Tennessee Valley Authority.

These agencies created hundreds of thousands of temporary jobs at astronomical public expense and they did nothing to effectively diminish long-term unemployment in the Great Depression.
Unemployment was above 14% from 1932-1940 despite the astronomical deficits run up by these New Deal jobs programs that are no different whatsoever from the infrastructure bank.

Obama's first stimulus created jobs, too few and at astronomical cost per job as well.

So Sarge, just give me a historical example in the United States where the types of public works jobs programs you and Obama are talking effectively dealt with unemployment.

We can't even agree on the same facts. First off - I'm not "tap dancing" around anything. I'm fine with raising taxes on the rich - they're at a 50-year low. In fact, follow the trends in the top tax rate over time, and you'll see that they fall, lead to a depression, rise again, slowly fall, lead to this recession.

But I'm not talking about raising taxes, as good ol' Grover insured that at least half of Congress won't vote for any tax raise of any sort. This deal is pretty moderate.

Companies are already asking for offshore profits to be brought back to America tax-free. Here's an example - http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202476742804

This isn't about raising taxes. It's about letting those companies move those profits to America instead of their offshore tax havens, and having them invest it in an infrastructure bank - getting interest! This is business-friendly. Republicans should love it.

Health care passed the Senate largely through the Reconciliation process, which can only be used once a year. The bar was pretty much stuck at 60 votes for anything else. And Scott Brown winning the election (not to mention Lieberman caucusing with the Dems) meant that getting 60 votes wasn't really in the cards very often.

Fine, so public works and infrastructure only deal with short-term jobs. Ask yourself this - is it better for a man to work for a few days, or not at all? And that spending ripples through the economy. Unlike the super-rich, the poor and middle-class tend to spend their money, and spend it in America. The stimulus was a band-aid for a gaping wound, but it was better than nothing.

Well, there's a plan for you. It's easier to attack a plan than come up with one. What is the Republican plan? More tax cuts for corporations that aren't hiring?

Sarge, you seem to like to rely on vague, ambiguous terms like "rich" "Super Rich" "The poor" and the "middle-class" without being specific.

You sound a lot like the demagogue-in-chief Obama himself.
This is exactly why I started this thread.
In an attempt to find out what President Obama's economic plans are.
Sarge you say that the central part of President Obama's economic plan is the creation of an infrastructure bank, the taxation of offshore corporate profits, and raising taxes on the rich.
You also say that President Obama can't get anything done because of Republicans.
He passed Obamacare, the stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and tarp II, among other bills so that claim is as hollow as Long John Silver's leg.

Ronald Reagan got legislation passed through a democratic house and a Republican Senate so claiming it can't be done doesn't stand up to the historical record either.

That is beside the point.

You posted an article from September 2010 about the infrastructure bank.
Could you show that this is still something that the President is championing?
Could you clarify who President Obama wants to raise taxes on and by how much?
Could you also show where President Obama has talked about taxing off shore corporate profits as well?

The thread is about "Where is Obama's economic policy."
This is the 3rd Quarter of 2011.
What is President Obama doing to deal with the downgrade of American debt?
What is President Obama doing to restore faith in the ability of the US to deal with its massive long-term entitlement liabilities to social security, medicare, and medicaid that are at the heart of the downgrade of American debt?
What is President Obama proposing today to create jobs? Has President Obama even mentioned the infrastructure bank in 2011?

As are as the assertions you've put forth Sarge you couldn't be more wrong to claim that "the stimulus was a band-aid for a gaping wound, but it was better than nothing."

As a matter of fact you only have so many bullets to fire to kill the recession and the stimulus wasted about $865 Billion of those bullets without doing anything to solve the long term problem Sarge.
This is exactly why the economy is in trouble and the 2010 election rebuked such big government remedies.

People need permanent, self-sustaining jobs Sarge.
The government doesn't create permanent, self-sustaining jobs.
The private sector creates permanent, self-sustaining jobs.
People who take enormous personal financial risk to create companies create permanent, self-sustaining jobs.
So if you really believe what you posted "that spending ripples through the economy" then you would support government getting out of the way of private business in order to get the most self-sustaining jobs as possible.
The stimulus didn't create permanent self-sustaining jobs Sarge and that's why Obama called for another stimulus called the Infrastructure bank that would be funded by taxes on overseas corporate profits.

The funny thing is President Obama proposed to tax overseas corporate profits in 2009 when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and he was rejected.
You say it was because of republicans despite the fact that Obamacare, the Stimulus, Tarp II, and Dodd-Frank were all passed under the same conditions.

So Sarge, when you are ready to provide the facts of Obama's economic policy besides a link to a September 2010 article will you let this thread know about it?