Political Animal
Blog
President Obama was in North Carolina yesterday, touring a fast-growing manufacturer of clean energy lighting, and convening a meeting of his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Of particular interest, though, were the president’s comments about ongoing negotiations with Congress over debt reduction.
“One thing I do think is important is we are keeping our eye on the need to accelerate the recovery as part of the overall package that we agree to,” Obama said. “I’ve long believed that coming out of as bad of a recession as we’ve been in it’s important for us to focus on what the real drivers are of our debt and deficit problems. And that’s not the day-to-day spending. It’s the structural problems that we’ve had between sending too much money out and not bringing enough money in.”
The president went on to note that the discussion with GOP leaders “gives us a little bit of room to continue to do some smart things like the payroll tax cut that we initiated in December while still keeping our eye on the ball in terms of the long term.”
Jonathan Cohn explained why this is encouraging.
This isn’t the first time in recent weeks or months the president said he wanted to strengthen the economy…. But, unless I’m mistaken, this is Obama’s most explicit statement about extending the payroll tax cut and, more important, about including some sort of economic booster as part of the debt ceiling talks. (It’s not been a part of the discussion so far, according to a Democratic source familiar with the discussions.) Also, Obama did this during a series of events designed to focus attention on the economy. The occasion for his North Carolina visit is a visit to a high-tech factory, where he’s also meeting with an advisory board of CEOs and local small business owners.
If I’m right — and, again, maybe I’m missing something — then we may finally be starting a discussion of how to balance short-term measures to bolster growth with long-term efforts to reduce deficits.
I heard Obama’s comments the same way, and I can only hope the talks continue to move forward with these priorities in mind.
Indeed, just this morning, Macroeconomic Advisers, one of major firms providing economic modeling and forecasting, released its latest projection for quarterly economic growth.
As of early May, things looked quite good. Macroeconomic Advisers projected that the U.S. economy was on track to show 3.7% growth in the second quarter (covering April, May, and June), which would be quite good. Soon after, Macroeconomic Advisers lowered that projection to 3.5%, Then 3.2%. Then 2.8%.
As of this morning, it’s 2.1%, which would barely be an improvement on the first quarter’s anemic 1.9%.
To even consider taking money out of the economy right now to focus on debt reduction is insanity.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on June 14, 2011 11:25 AM:
I appreciate Obama's wanting to "accelerate" the economy.
But, how can he do that when the Republicans have both feet on the brake, and a few Democrats are helping them by having their hand on the emergency brake?
T2 on June 14, 2011 11:34 AM:
its "insanity" unless you are banking on a terrible economy so you can run for president against the "Obama Recession".
Steve LaBonne on June 14, 2011 11:38 AM:
Empty talk. Obama is so full of shit he could fertilize Iowa all by himself. (And payroll tax cuts are nothing if not shit. Employers aren't hiring because there's no demand for their products, dumbass. It's not the cost of hiring workers, it's that there's no reason to hire them.)
Of course, he doesn't care about us peons, he cares about sucking up to Wall Street so he can milk them for campaign $$.
Holmes on June 14, 2011 11:42 AM:
The President needs to explain why the massive cuts at the state level are having a detrimental effect on the economy as a whole. While the Japan parts issue and gas prices are certainly partly to blame, the continued layoffs at the state and local levels are preventing any sort of momentum on the jobs front.
sjw on June 14, 2011 11:42 AM:
Obama's leadership on this issue is tepid, at best. He got snookered by the Republicans during the first half of his term, and the anemic economy is the consequence. You would think Obama would have learned the lesson by now, but he continues to believe in the bipartisan-kumbaya-community-organizing-we're-all-in-this-together-bullshit. Maybe with the prospect of a bruising reelection campaign ahead, David Plouffe can at least rouse him to proactivism. But right now Obama remains pretty much The Invisible Man.
Holmes on June 14, 2011 11:45 AM:
What policies do you propose, Steve LaBonne? Keep in mind, they have to make it through Congress.
kindness on June 14, 2011 11:52 AM:
Republicans want to kill the economy because they think it will bring them election gains in 2012. The MSM & 'Village Elders' can't bring themselves to say this out loud though. I've seen a couple of blogs begin to mention this. I'm still waiting for the actual MSM to say it.
Joe Friday on June 14, 2011 11:53 AM:
Robert Reich made an excellent point on 'THIS WEEK' this past Sunday.
Obama needs to propose jobs legislation.
Nevermind that the Republicans will block it. Propose a jobs bill and have Harry Reid bring it up in the Senate. Send Biden over to preside in the Senate. Hold pressers before and after. Make it clear who is trying to create jobs and who is blocking those attempts.
REPEAT.
Waiting for the Confidence Fairy will not work.
Ron Byers on June 14, 2011 11:55 AM:
sjw
I don't blame Obama as much as I blame the rest of the Democrats. Except for their recent Throw Anthony Weiner under the Bus Campaign what has the Democratic party leadership done in any organized way in the last few months.
Peter C on June 14, 2011 11:58 AM:
So we have a 'sane' party which is pushing for things with a proven record of stimulating economic growth, and an 'insane' party which threatens certain economic harm unless we implement policies which have a proven track record of failing to work. Meanwhile our media covers the situation like a horse-race (when it can break away from Anthony Weiner), and David Brooks wishes that the Republicans were the sane ones and blames the Democrats for their inability to do anything constructive unilaterally (and in violation of the Constitution).
Nothing sane will come to the floor in the House. Nothing sane could survive a filibuster in the Senate. And Tim Paulenty says anyone who doesn't think 5% growth for 10 years in a row will happen when we eliminate most all taxes for rich people is a bad American. We're headed for 1937 all over again.
jayackroyd on June 14, 2011 11:59 AM:
"insanity"
I am coming to believe that the operative word is "treason."
Trollop on June 14, 2011 12:00 PM:
OMG, did he just finally admit that we're not bringing in enough of money?!
I can die now, a politician actually stated a truth.
jayackroyd on June 14, 2011 12:02 PM:
"He got snookered by the Republicans during the first half of his term, and the anemic economy is the consequence"
Eventually, you have to consider the possibility that Obama is getting the policy regime he wants.
jawbone on June 14, 2011 12:02 PM:
Steve, maybe the problem begins with a president who DOES NOT believe in actions and programs such as FDR used in the Great Depression. Maybe this president really does believe St. Ronnie did the right things, but just didn't go far enough in cutting New Deal programs and stifling Great Society programs.
Maybe the voters were completely bamboozled into thinking they were electing a 2st Century FDR, but instead got a 21st Century amlagam of Hoover, Reagan, and, as far as excutive power goes, Bush-Cheney.
Why does Obama do what he does, and does not do what seems so obviously necessary to do? Because he's a conservative.
Steve LaBonne on June 14, 2011 12:10 PM:
Not where the politics are concerned. If Obama wants to beast a "credible" (in Village terms) nominee like Romney he'd better make it clear what he would fight for if returned to office and given a renewed Congressional majority. So far the answer seems to be what it's been from the start- not much. That won't cut it next November.
jawbone on June 14, 2011 12:11 PM:
Somehow, when I hear Obama talk about the need to balance outgo with income, I take little comfort that he realizes the social safety net is utterly essential to the continued life and health of many Americans.
He's been talking about making "changes" to SocSec, Medicare, and Medicaid since before he announced he was running for the Dem nomination. He alarmed Paul Krugman -- and me as a votr -- so I look at his words and I do not see a president who has made a change in his approach. He looks like a first term president looking to fool enough of the voters to get reelected.
JW on June 14, 2011 12:15 PM:
Why not "accelerate" the economy (and/or feed some Bush-Cheney criminals to the legal system) by getting to the bottom of what happened to $6 BILLION-plus that was apparently stolen in Iraq?
At the moment, official Washington is treating the theft as though a meter maid had smudged and rendered unreadable the license plate number on an illegally parked car.
T2 on June 14, 2011 12:16 PM:
Ron Byers makes a good point. The Weinergate shows that Dems can actually act together when something important is at stake. It's the little things like the economy and tax hikes and jobs programs and wars that they can't work as a unit on.
Rick on June 14, 2011 12:30 PM:
Is everyone in DC on some kind of hallucinogenic drug? How on earth are Obama's pathetic mutterings on payroll tax holidays even remotely encouraging? One has to be economically illiterate to think the ruling elites are even remotely interested in the health of the broader economy.
It doesn't really require much processing power to realize Obama's rhetoric hasn't changed one iota. He actually thinks the way to a better economy is by strangling it first with deficit reduction. Not one word about jobs, since he believes "the gumint don't produce no jobs." Of course, job creation is the only real way out of the deficit in the first place.
Today's economic elite are the equivalent of a 16th century barber. Put leeches on the skin, or perhaps some bloodletting... and call that "surgery." With special emphasis on the leeches...
Obama says he wants to accelerate the "recovery." Fine, but since we're already heading into a double-dip, that may present a problem. Also, he doesn't say he is going to deal with the economy, he just says he wants it to magically become better somehow, by the good graces of his corporate benefactors. Or something. I know, let's have more tax cuts! Worked great the last several times, eh?
Remember the old axe, "Actions speak louder than words"? At what point did 8th grade rhetoric replace the need for action?
Kon Kilo on June 14, 2011 12:40 PM:
"Insanity"?
More like the GOP's Starve the Beast strategy that has never actually gone away.
It's the only explanation for their budgetary actions over the past several decades.
Steve, please post on this strategy.
Lance on June 14, 2011 12:59 PM:
"But, unless I'm mistaken, this is Obama's most explicit statement about extending the payroll tax cut and, more important, about including some sort of economic booster as part of the debt ceiling talks."
What? Adding negotiating conditions at the last minute? Who does this guy think he is?
A Republican?
Michael on June 14, 2011 1:09 PM:
No, but you and a few other idiots on here, sure sound like one...
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 1:42 PM:
"(And payroll tax cuts are nothing if not shit. Employers aren't hiring because there's no demand for their products, dumbass. It's not the cost of hiring workers, it's that there's no reason to hire them.)"
LaBonne, that's the wrong payroll tax cut. You're thinking of last year's deal that gave employers a payroll tax cut for hiring unemployed people; which I believe was part of one of the jobs bills we got. The current one is a 2% payroll tax cut from the employee's side, and doesn't save employers anything.
It's no different than if they just gave working people extra money, except we get a little at a time in our paychecks and in a way that Republicans won't cry about it being communistic redistribution; because it's in the form of a tax cut (not that they liked the idea anyway). So someone making $20k a year is getting an additional $400 this year. Not a big stimulus, but it's far better than the one you got us.
BTW, this was part of the economic stimulus Obama got us in the dreaded compromise last December. For as much as people gnashed their teeth that Obama got nothing in exchange for extending the Bush taxcuts, that's obviously not the case.
bdop4 on June 14, 2011 1:54 PM:
He's still addressing the problem through a deficit lens, trying to beat the republicans on their terms.
Epic fail.
liberal on June 14, 2011 1:57 PM:
Doctor Biobrain wrote, LaBonne, that's the wrong payroll tax cut.
Not clear it really matters. The incidence of a given tax doesn't depend on who remits it, but the relevant elasticities. Many economists think the true incidence of the payroll tax (regardless of who remits it) falls mostly on the employee, not the employer.
For as much as people gnashed their teeth that Obama got nothing in exchange for extending the Bush taxcuts, that's obviously not the case.
Yes, though there's the downside that it makes SS look that much more "bankrupt".
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 1:58 PM:
"He actually thinks the way to a better economy is by strangling it first with deficit reduction. Not one word about jobs, since he believes "the gumint don't produce no jobs." Of course, job creation is the only real way out of the deficit in the first place."
Rick, do you enjoy living with your head up your rear, or were you not aware that it was there?
First off, this was at the "Council on Jobs and Competitiveness." It says so in the first paragraph of this very post. This wasn't a speech about cutting the deficit, but a speech about creating jobs.
More importantly, had you clicked on the link, you'd have seen this:
“Today, the single most serious economic problem we face is getting people back to work,” Obama said in a speech here. “And even though we’ve added more than 2 million private sector jobs over the last 15 months, I’m not satisfied. Not until everyone who wants a good job that offers a little security has one. Not until empty storefronts in town are open for business again.”
What the heck? He was talking about jobs.
In fact, if you read the speech itself, you'll find that he mentioned the word "job" fifteen times. Yet...you didn't think he mentioned it at all. How odd.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/13/remarks-president-meeting-jobs-and-competitiveness-council
Before people criticize what Obama isn't saying, they really should bother reading what he's saying. And not just a clip of his speech, but the whole thing. Anyone who believes that Obama isn't constantly talking about the economy and hyping liberal solutions for it doesn't know what Obama's been saying. I don't mind when people criticize Obama, but I sure wish they knew what they were talking about first.
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 2:14 PM:
Oops, made a mistake in my last comment, in that I grabbed the wrong speech. I looked at the one he gave to his jobs council, but the real speech was one he gave at Cree, Inc; where he mentioned the word "job" thirty-three times.
He also mentioned his plans for creating new jobs by partnering with colleges and private industry to train more educated workers in science and math; as well as investing in clean energy, research, education, and infrastructure. Ooh, what a traitor to liberalism this guy is!
And just to help out the folks who insist Obama doesn't talk like a liberal, here's a direct link to that speech.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/13/remarks-president-cree-inc-durham-north-carolina
And again, you can criticize him for not DOING enough, but you can't say he's not at least talking like a liberal.
Lazslo on June 14, 2011 3:07 PM:
"... it's important for us to focus on what the real drivers are of our debt and deficit problems. And that's not the day-to-day spending. It's the structural problems that we've had between sending too much money out and not bringing enough money in.
Therefore he proposes a tax cut? This makes sense to people?
The problem with the economy is consumer demand. The problem with the govt. deficit is due to lack of income. A payroll tax cut will not spur demand in the conomy because there are millions of people unemployed. A tax cut will increase, not decrease, the deficit because businesses and high income earners are not paying their proportionately fare share of taxes.
Are gov. officials stupid or lying; or both?
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 3:21 PM:
A payroll tax cut will not spur demand in the conomy because there are millions of people unemployed.
Lazslo, this is a payroll taxcut that gives more money to workers. That will spur demand in that it gives more money to people. Meanwhile, the government is borrowing to get the remainder 2%, so we get spending on both ends.
No, this doesn't directly lower the deficit, but he didn't propose it as a way of helping the deficit directly. He proposed it as a way of stimulating the economy; which will help the deficit in the long run. That's why he said the deficit wasn't about "day-to-day spending." I'm thinking people are reading too much into his anti-deficit talk, as he only pays it lip service before hyping liberal solutions. Basically, he's saying "Yes, the deficit is important, but..." and the words after the "but" are what he's really saying.
Meanwhile, he's still committed to allowing the Bush taxcuts to expire next year, which I'm sure will be a HUGE campaign issue for him; as he'll get to campaign on the popular idea of taxing the rich, while the GOP nominee will be forced into the unpopular position. And that's exactly as Obama said it'd be back in December.
So no, this isn't lying or stupid. You just didn't understand what was going on.
AlphaLiberal on June 14, 2011 3:32 PM:
I've lost patience with President Obama on this score. He took his eye off of the unemployment crisis so he could court the right wing, the big corps and others by going after the deficit.
Obama:
"As we work to create jobs, it is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we’ve been accumulating for far too long - deficits that won’t just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now."
Well, there you go, Steve! Jobs are as important as the budget deficit. And, BTW, do not expect this President to tell the American people (accurately) how the deficit got so large. He won't do it.
And, now, after he threw the unemployed under the bus in his desire to mollify the right by taking on deficits, the right is beating him up over JOBS!
Surprise!
The fact is: We need to push Obama to do the right thing. We cannot depend on him doing that. His foremost goal is his image in history, that he is seen as "above the fray" rather than fighting for working people.
And, look at who is running his White House now! Bankers! Daley, Geithner. Wall Street will be taken care of first by this White House. The unemployed will have to wait.
Marnie on June 14, 2011 3:40 PM:
We are keeping in mind that that that payroll tax cut is a 2% cut in SS withholdings, thus Obama joings the Tea Baggers in speeding the death of SS and of older Americans.
Sweet.
Dave H on June 14, 2011 3:46 PM:
Do liberals know how negotiations work? Asking for something else in addition to what you're already haggling over makes no sense. The Dems are seeking a debt ceiling increase. Repubs are seeking spending decreases. The negotiation is over how much of what they want each side will get. Introducing stimulus spending is not only extraneous to the negotiation, but obviously a deal breaker. "If you give me what I want, I'll let you throw in something else I want, too" is not negotiation.
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 3:58 PM:
"Well, there you go, Steve! Jobs are as important as the budget deficit."
AlphaLiberal, why are you distorting Obama's words? In the paragraph before the one you quoted he said "That’s why job creation will be our number one focus in 2010. We’ll put more Americans back to work rebuilding our infrastructure all across the country."
So...why are you saying he thinks jobs are as important as the deficit, when he had just said that jobs were the number one focus; while touting the need for infrastructure?
He also announce a spending freeze, but doing it so we can INCREASE spending on needed things while getting rid of the oil subsidies.
As he said later in that speech:
"I’ve also proposed a spending freeze, so that as we increase investments in things we need, like job creation and middle class tax cuts – we cut spending on those we don’t, like tax cuts for oil companies and investment fund managers, and programs that are redundant, obsolete, or simply ineffective. Spending related to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected – and neither will national security – but all other discretionary government programs will."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/weekly-address-president-obama-pledges-rein-budget-deficits
So yes, he talked about cutting the deficit, but you can't ignore the good things he spoke about. And if the only way you can make a point is by cherrypicking his speeches, then maybe you didn't have a point in the first place.
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 4:01 PM:
"We are keeping in mind that that that payroll tax cut is a 2% cut in SS withholdings, thus Obama joings the Tea Baggers in speeding the death of SS and of older Americans.
Well...except Social Security is still being full funded for this, as mandated in the law. So what you said was entirely incorrect.
Jesus, is there ANYONE who knows how to play the game?
Lazslo on June 14, 2011 4:39 PM:
Doctor Bio-
Surely you recall the tax relief effort from 2009 that "put more money in worker's pockets". That didn't spur demand in any neglible way. Even if a new payroll tax cut did spur a percentage of people to spend money (which is doubtful it will) the fact that many millions of people are unemployed makes it impossible to spur demand on any significant macro level. It just won't happen, despite your theory.
As far as the deficit issue, that's just a complete red herring. It's not a real concern. If it were, just increase revenues and problem solved. No one is doing that, not even dems, which shows how little of a real concern the deficit is to either party.
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 4:51 PM:
Lazslo, Obama has talked repeatedly of taxing the rich more, including a promise to let the Bush taxcuts for the rich expire next year; which he correctly identified as a political winner for him. He's also been saying we need to cut subsidies for oil companies. Where have you been when he's saying this stuff?
As for the payroll taxcut, it got ALL of them to spend the extra money, because they had it to spend. It wasn't a gimmick designed to trick them into spending. It directly gave them more money to spend and they're still doing so. And yeah, the unemployed won't be spending more; which is why he extended unemployment benefits for them. But the vast majority of Americans ARE employed, and they all got the payroll taxcut.
As for your suggestion that the stimulus didn't spur demand, reality disagrees. Did it fix everything? No. Was it enough? No. Did it have a positive effect? Definitely. And Obama's been saying the same thing: We did good, but we need to do more. Again, read his speeches and you'll see what I mean.
As for the deficit being a red herring, I suspect Obama knows that; which is why he only pays it lip service before explaining all the spending we need to do. He spends a few sentences saying "Yeah, the deficit is important and we need to do something about it," but then spends the rest of his speech stating all the liberal ideas about investing in infrastructure, education, technology, and clean energy. And he also uses the deficit as a reason why we need to raise taxes on the rich.
Again, you can disagree with his sincerity, but you can't honestly claim he's not saying this stuff. He might not be a liberal, but he sure sounds like one.
Joe Friday on June 14, 2011 5:36 PM:
Doctor Biobrain,
this is a payroll taxcut that gives more money to workers. That will spur demand in that it gives more money to people.
We learned from the FAILED Chimpy Bush "stimulus checks", that when you give the American people unincentivized money in a down economy, they overwhelmingly either save it or utilize it to pay down debt, neither of which is stimulative.
Doug on June 14, 2011 5:55 PM:
I find it hilarious when someone quotes President Obama as saying: "It's the structural problems that we've had between sending too much money out and not bringing enough money in." and immediately assumes that ALL the President is worried about is making cuts in the budget. Apparently the reading comprehension of some posters is trumped by their dislike of President Obama and his (presumed) actions (or inactions).
In the above quote it's very obvious that President Obama sees that there are two parts to balancing the budget: decreased spending and increased revenue, aka raising taxes. The President has already done all that he said he would regarding the former and while one can argue that he shouldn't even have done those, my personal opinion is that most of what Mr. Obama did regarding cutting government expenditures was for the optics. No Federal worker, as far as I know, has been fired or laid off because of the President's actions. Undoubtedly many who hoped for a job with the Federal government haven't been hired, but that's the fault of the Republicans in the House, NOT Mr. Obama.
If I were to judge Mr. Obama merely by his words, he would certainly have to be labeled a liberal. If I were to judge him solely on his accomplishments, I would have to label him as a pragmatic liberal as he obviously is willing to accept less than what he wants as long as is progress towards the final goal. Perhaps not as exciting as many would wish, but certainly more productive.
Apparently, rather than the President we DO have, many who post here would prefer someone who is an idealistic perfectionist, continually drawing lines in the sand and verbally assaulting all and sundry who stand in his way, while continually going down to defeat and NOT ACCOMPLISHING ANYTHING.
I used to think that all political masochists were Republicans...
Doctor Biobrain on June 14, 2011 6:08 PM:
We learned from the FAILED Chimpy Bush "stimulus checks", that when you give the American people unincentivized money in a down economy, they overwhelmingly either save it or utilize it to pay down debt, neither of which is stimulative.
And so if wages went up by 2% this year, that wouldn't be good for the economy? That seems unlikely, yet it's identical to what Obama did.
Because I absolutely reject your claim that people aren't spending this 2%. Sure, the whole thing isn't spent on new demand. But I myself remember buying stuff with my stimulus checks that I wouldn't otherwise have bought.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Though this link says that the 2001 stimulus checks boosted the economy by .8% the 1st quarter and .6% the 2nd.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscalpolicy/p/bush_tax_rebate.htm
And the CBO says that, although an employee-side payroll taxcut isn't as stimulative as an employer-side cut, it does provide some stimulus; with us getting back up to 90 cents for every dollar lost.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10803/01-14-Employment.pdf
But of course, the purpose of the employee-side payroll cut isn't just for stimulus; it's to help us buy stuff and pay our debts. So let's not get simplistic about this and go with claims as if there is NO benefit to the employee-side cut.
Joe Friday on June 14, 2011 8:14 PM:
Doctor Biobrain,
And so if wages went up by 2% this year, that wouldn't be good for the economy?
Not if it's saved or used to pay down debt which has been the pattern.
~
Because I absolutely reject your claim that people aren't spending this 2%.
Reject it all you like, but it is reality.
~
But I myself remember buying stuff with my stimulus checks that I wouldn't otherwise have bought.
Even if true, anecdotal examples are meaningless, and contrary to the aggregate data.
~
But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
I'm afraid that economists agree that you are indeed wrong.
~
Though this link says that the 2001 stimulus checks boosted the economy by .8% the 1st quarter and .6% the 2nd.
Even if true (and that is dubious), those are within rounding errors, and are of no significance.
~
And the CBO says that, although an employee-side payroll taxcut isn't as stimulative as an employer-side cut, it does provide some stimulus; with us getting back up to 90 cents for every dollar lost.
That's not a "stimulus". You need to get MORE than a dollar back for every dollar spent for it to be stimulative. Only getting back 90 cents is a loser.
~
So let's not get simplistic about this and go with claims as if there is NO benefit to the employee-side cut.
Sorry, but there is NO benefit.
Lazslo on June 15, 2011 12:37 PM:
Biobrain:
If the problem with the economy is unemployment, which it is, I really think your apologies for the Obama admin fall far short of addressing the problem. I'm not saying what he has done is nothing, I'm saying he hasn't solved the problem, and my original point that further tax cuts are not going to be the panacea needed is, I think, born out by the "reality" of past efforts and tax cuts. And it's quite possibly to his demise in 2012.
You're completely missing my point about the many who are unemployed. With so many people unemployed, they will not get a tax cut and thus cannot contribute to any recovery by spending those tax cuts. For any significant improvement in unemployment, the amount of consumer spending would need to be massive, and you can't get to such massive consumer spending if 10% of the population are unemployed, moreover most of the rest of society will use the tax cuts to either save or pay down debt, as others have stated. The ONLY solution to the unemployment problem is govt spending on work projects. The govt needs to directly employ the people, and once that is done, they will in turn become consumers. But Obama isn't advocating for that.
I get that passing a bill for govt spending is difficult, and maybe even impossible, but if Obama doesn't even try, the population cannot tell who is working to solve unemployment and who's blocking it for political reasons. If Obama failed to get a works project bill passed he could say he tried but the Repubs blocked any effort at improving unemployment. It may not be a winner, but it's the right thing to do.
As far as letting the tax cuts expire, we just had that debate last December and Obama extended them. If he's re-elected, he'll extend them again. To believe otherwise is willful self delusion.