Forbes on FOX

Obama touts 20-page pamphlet to bring economy back

Plan calls for more stimulus spending

 

DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

IN FOCUS: IMPACT OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SECOND TERM PLAN ON THE ECONOMY

STEVE FORBES: The president's plan won't even create the $1.6-million jobs because for every one of those jobs created by this political nonsense, two or three other jobs are destroyed, in the private sector.

ELIZABETH MACDONALD: Interesting math-President Obama spending nearly $450B to create or keep 288K jobs over two years. This is the White House's warmed over version of the Kelly Blue Book of used economic plans which he's offered earlier this year and since 2009, which didn't work the last four years. And this is why his blanket should be on the New York Time's best seller list for fiction-even his "new plan" admits his projected 12 million new jobs in the next four years is what "independent economists" have projected will happen anyway without the plan.

RICH KARLGAARD: A stimulus project that costs $1.6 million per job is more proof that Obama is out of ideas. He's raised a billion dollars to destroy Romney and it all went out the window in the first debate. Now he's left sputtering about his own plans for a second administration.

But he has no plans -- except these little make job projects -- because he is out of ideas.

JOHN TAMNY: Obama's action is one of desperation. His economic plan has failed, but wanting to create the appearance that he's "doing something" ahead of 11/6, this is his latest Hail Mary.

It won't help the economy because none of it has anything to do with economic growth. 100,000 new teachers is not going to boost the investment necessary for job creation, and as for job training programs, what on earth could government workers know about what private sector employers desire? After that, his tax increases on top earners will reduce the amount of funds investable by the very people who have access funds necessary to fund the creation of jobs.

Obama's plan is a total waste, and I'll wager the electorate is properly catching on to just that.

RICK UNGAR: This is simply a perverse and slanted way of analyzing the program Obama has proposed for his second term.

To assign a price per job to programs designed to have a long lasting impact on the economy, and jobs and benefits to the country for years to come, is akin to a developer deciding to build a building that will produce rentals for a 100 years -- producing great profits -- but then only analyzing that project by dividing the total cost of putting up the building by the number of construction workers that will be hammering rivets into the steel.

If you want to criticize the plan as one that will fail to have a long-term, positive impact on our economy and society, go for it. But to use this cost per job analysis is a favored device of the president's opponents that misleads the public and dodges the serious questions.

MARK TATGE: It is about time. It is also a recognition that the lack of jobs is our biggest problem. The private sector won't step up to the plate so it is good that Obama is willing to do so. We should have spent this kind of money two years ago. The $787 billion was a drop in the bucket. We should have spent double or triple that amount given the size of our economy, $14.8 trillion.

WOULD TAXPAYERS BE BETTER OFF TODAY IF THE GOVERNMENT ONLY OFFERED GUARANTEES, IF NEEDED, IN A PRIVATE BAILOUT?

STEVE FORBES: Romney's guarantee was fine in the fall of 2008 when there was panic in the air. But after the panic subsided in early 2009, GM and Chrysler should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. Instead, we got a political intervention, similar to those used by Third World miscreants, where politics reigned supreme, creditors got the shaft and unions got a rich payoff for supporting Obama.

JOHN TAMNY: No, taxpayers would be better off if the Bush and Obama administrations had simply done nothing and let GM and Chrysler fall into bankruptcy. If so, both car companies would still exist today, but be much healthier. They would because the new owners would have ripped up their gold-plated contracts with union workers, not to mention that the new owners - likely Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen, or all three - actually have a clue about how to build cars properly. As such, the companies would be much healthier for not being under the thumb of the feds while operating under effective managers. The taxpayers were ripped off, and that would similarly true if Romney's plan were in place.

MIKE OZANIAN: I am not for government guarantees or for government led bailouts, both of which are harmful because they result in the allocation of capital for political purposes rather than economic reasons - note, how GM's stock has gotten hammered since its IPO while equities are up in general. But Obama's bailout was and continues to be particularly harmful because it short-changed lenders who had paid a premium, which is one reason risk-capital is on strike.

RICH KARLGAARD: Obama's GM bailout wasn't even a bailout. It was theft. It took from GM's creditors and gave to the unions.

All you have to do is look at Ford to see that American auto companies don't need bailouts.

RICK UNGAR: Had GM first entered bankruptcy, they never would have made it to the point where government guarantees for loans could have been negotiated with lenders and a deal put into place- and anyone willing to be honest about this knows it.

There was no loan money around for GM and that includes Bain Capital who took a pass. GM and Chrysler would never have been able to pay their creditors, suppliers and, most importantly their workers, and would have been forced to close their doors long before lenders could be located and guarantees negotiated to accomplish these loans.

Now, if you think these auto companies should have been left to go out of business because of their failure -fine. At least that is an honest perspective. But Romney's attempts to re-write history and pretend that his plan would have allowed the auto industry to survive is completely false and voters know that it's false.

MARK TATGE: The government had to step up to the plate to make up for what the private sector would not do - provide the necessary capital and liquidity for both Wall Street and the auto industry. The result is the auto industry re-tooled and is in better financial condition. Much of the money spent by the government has been repaid. The same is true for the big banks bailed out under TAARP.

UNITED NATIONS PARTNER ORGANIZATION IS SET TO DISPATCH MONITORS ACROSS THE U.S. AT POLLING SITES TO OBSERVE FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS

STEVE FORBES: This is purely a ploy to hurt Republicans. We have a Voting Rights Act of 1965 that expressly addresses these issues. At the very least, we ought to cut off several hundred million dollars of U.N. funding if they're going to require us to underwrite these crazy kinds of activities.

ELIZABETH MACDONALD: Yes it's proof, the U.N. has never cared for U.S. taxpayers, but suddenly cares about voters? I say cut U.N. funding, and spend our own tax dollars on appropriate voter IDs for deserving citizens. Overall, the U.S. spent at least $7.7 billion on the sprawling U.N. last year, up from $6.35 billion the previous year -- an increase of more than 21 percent. Stop lining U.N. bureaucrats' pockets, I also want to see the contracting for these "observers."

MIKE OZANIAN: I can't recall the U.N being asked to rule on the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, called "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen" at the polls in 2008 where people witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia brandishing a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both making racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" That said, it seems we have enough low enforcers in the U.S. to make sure our election laws are upheld.

RICK UNGAR: Let's remember that the request for monitoring came from United States based organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU who, based on the extraordinary efforts some states have made to disenfranchise certain American voters are a bit worried as to how some folks may be treated at the polls.

This has given Florida Republican Senate candidate, Connie Mack, whose getting his butt whipped down there in Florida, the idea to resort to the old conservative standby of, get the U.S. out of the U.N. and toss the United Nations off U.S. soil in the hope that it might revive his candidacy.

I have a better idea. Let's throw Connie Mack off US soil.

MORGAN BRENNAN: No. First off we need the U.N. and the allies it produces for us. It's also tiny cost for the U.S.A. about $6.4 billion in 2009. So firstly leave that alone. As for this polling site partnership, I actually think this could be a good thing. Polls showing this race, at least right now, is neck and neck. The last time we saw such a close election was 2000 when the outcome came down to Florida voter violations, have been reported and called out in swing states in the past several election cycles and on top of that we have seen laws change in many this year. Couple that with a tight race and it might be a good thing to have an outside organization keeping separate report -- one more way to validate the winner, whomever that turns out to be.

INFORMER: More companies announcing layoffs this week. Our informers chose the stocks for companies which are hiring

MORGAN BRENNAN: FAMILY DOLLAR STORES (FOD)

52-WEEK HIGH: $74.73

52-WEEK LOW: $53.03

ELIZABETH MACDONALD: WALMART (WMT)

52-WEEK HIGH: $77.60

52-WEEK LOW: $55.68