Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Obamer's job billFollow

#1 Sep 08 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
39 posts
I'm sure most everyone here already knows, but damnit that hasn't stopped me the once or twice before!

If you haven't yet found out: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/09/201198221242207198.html#.TmlQ7zioI0I.reddit


If I may give my piss-poor opinion, when did Obama become a republican?
#2 Sep 08 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When it forced the GOP to rush even further to the fringe Right so they can say "No!"?

Witness the GOP bitching about extending the payroll tax cuts. I guess that money is better left in the hands of the government than in the hands of businesses workers. Funny, huh?

Edit: It's actually a cut from employees' payroll taxes. Of course, the first time, I wrote "hands of government" twice so each edit brings me a little closer to what I meant to say.

Edited, Sep 8th 2011 9:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Sep 08 2011 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,831 posts
But where's the tax cut for Fortune 500 companies?? That's why the GOP won't get behind it!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#4 Sep 09 2011 at 12:43 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
39 posts
So its a political maneuver? Neat!
#5 Sep 09 2011 at 8:10 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,072 posts
It's fodder for 2012 House races.

The Republican freshman wave of 2010 was elected on the promise of jobs for their districts. Well, here they are being handed a jobs bill FULL of Republican talking points, the very things many of them campaigned on. But because it's being proposed by Obama, they automatically have to hate it. They can't let Obama take any credit. So they're being forced to say no.

When this fails to pass the House (I will be monumentally surprised if it passes), then Democrats will have a giant weapon against House Rs in the 2012 elections. "They voted against the jobs bill!" Smiley: motz

It just might work.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#6 Sep 09 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
decayed wrote:
So its a political maneuver? Neat!
Apparently it's unheard of for some people that politicians are, in fact, politicians.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Sep 09 2011 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
decayed wrote:
So its a political maneuver? Neat!

Well, I don't think there's anything in there that would cause him to cry if it passed. But it's certainly to his advantage to present centrist ideas and leave it to the GOP to either climb aboard the Obama train or refuse things like payroll tax cuts and employer tax credits for hiring returning veterans.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Sep 09 2011 at 9:03 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,831 posts
catwho wrote:
It's fodder for 2012 House races.

The Republican freshman wave of 2010 was elected on the promise of jobs for their districts. Well, here they are being handed a jobs bill FULL of Republican talking points, the very things many of them campaigned on. But because it's being proposed by Obama, they automatically have to hate it. They can't let Obama take any credit. So they're being forced to say no.

When this fails to pass the House (I will be monumentally surprised if it passes), then Democrats will have a giant weapon against House Rs in the 2012 elections. "They voted against the jobs bill!" Smiley: motz

It just might work.

That's what I was thinking. Obama gives them what they want, but they refuse to take anything from his hand.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#9 Sep 09 2011 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Jophiel wrote:
decayed wrote:
So its a political maneuver? Neat!

Well, I don't think there's anything in there that would cause him to cry if it passed. But it's certainly to his advantage to present centrist ideas and leave it to the GOP to either climb aboard the Obama train or refuse things like payroll tax cuts and employer tax credits for hiring returning veterans.

These aren't centrist ideas and I'm sure when gbaji finally pops into this thread, he'll explain why.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#10 Sep 09 2011 at 9:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Seems a lot more politically motivated then economically motivated.

Option 1.

The bills passes (most likely not in full), Obama is seen as a president who does seem to get, on top of that he managed to get Washington to work together on something that really needs to be fixed.

Option 2.

The bill fails, republicans are seen as anti job creation, Obama then takes this to the campaign trail touting he had a plan in place that could be easily paid for that created jobs and offered companies tax relief to do so.

Either way Obama wins, and most importantly in the independent section.

My own opinion is there is a lot of fluff in the bill, and the majority of the jobs appear to be temporary infrastructure projects. The shining point to me is the tax credit for businesses to hire people who have been unemployed for 6 months or more. (then again that probably only stands out because the Premier of Ontario just decided to announce a tax credit for companies to hire new immigrants, not all Ontarians.)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#11 Sep 09 2011 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
From what I've read, Cantor has said that the House GOP would dice up the "Obama Plan", whenever pen gets put to paper, and pass the individual parts that they like (payroll tax holiday, incentives to hire unemployed workers, likely some earmark infrastructure spending) while ignoring the parts that they don't (everything else).

What's funny is that Obama basically told the Senate "super-committee" created by the recent debt ceiling bill to find ways to pay for everything. "Hey guys, I know you're trying to find $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but can you spot me $500 billion next week?"
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#12 Sep 09 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
I'm not fully up to speed on things yet, but it strikes me as similar to the last package and about half the size. The last package was viewed as less than an overwhelming success by the middle. Given how small this one is I don't see it doing much but adding to the argument that he spent billions of dollars and the economy didn't improve. I don't see this one really helping him any come re-election.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#13 Sep 09 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm not fully up to speed on things yet, but it strikes me as similar to the last package and about half the size. The last package was viewed as less than an overwhelming success by the middle. Given how small this one is I don't see it doing much but adding to the argument that he spent billions of dollars and the economy didn't improve. I don't see this one really helping him any come re-election.

*cough*
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#14 Sep 09 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
Demea wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I'm not fully up to speed on things yet, but it strikes me as similar to the last package and about half the size. The last package was viewed as less than an overwhelming success by the middle. Given how small this one is I don't see it doing much but adding to the argument that he spent billions of dollars and the economy didn't improve. I don't see this one really helping him any come re-election.

*cough*


Yeah something like that. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Sep 09 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
What's funny is that Obama basically told the Senate "super-committee" created by the recent debt ceiling bill to find ways to pay for everything. "Hey guys, I know you're trying to find $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but can you spot me $500 billion next week?"

I don't see an issue with that. Presumably, we want the bill "paid for" so why not ask the bipartisan group tasked with "paying for" the debt ceiling increase to look at this as well? Had Obama just laid out $450b in cuts, the GOP would be jammering about how unreasonable all those cuts were.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Sep 09 2011 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
What's funny is that Obama basically told the Senate "super-committee" created by the recent debt ceiling bill to find ways to pay for everything. "Hey guys, I know you're trying to find $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but can you spot me $500 billion next week?"

I don't see an issue with that. Presumably, we want the bill "paid for" so why not ask the bipartisan group tasked with "paying for" the debt ceiling increase to look at this as well? Had Obama just laid out $450b in cuts, the GOP would be jammering about how unreasonable all those cuts were.


I like it when my boss piles more work on me too... Smiley: rolleyes

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Sep 09 2011 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I like it when my boss piles more work on me too... Smiley: rolleyes
You're an unpaid intern? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Sep 09 2011 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
I like it when my boss piles more work on me too... Smiley: rolleyes

Certainly no one is forcing them to be a Congresscritter. Last I checked, it's even a job that pays well with some pretty sweet benefits. But, if they're really feeling put upon with all this "figure out solutions to problems facing America" nonsense, they can always resign from the super-committee.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Sep 09 2011 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I like it when my boss piles more work on me too... Smiley: rolleyes
You're an unpaid intern? Smiley: dubious


Quantity goes up, quality goes down. There's only so many hours. Smiley: wink

But as for the committee; I'm still skeptical they can come to an agreement without triggering the contingency cuts even without adding an additional $500b-ish.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Sep 09 2011 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Quantity goes up, quality goes down. There's only so many hours. Smiley: wink

This has been the least productive Congress in decades. I'm sure they'll find the time.

They might need to cut out another reading of the Constitution, I suppose.

If the committee can't find a solution, no one else was going to either. Another important note is that, if the committee produces a plan, Congress is beholden to give it an up-or-down vote. No filibusters or or never making it to the floor because the Speaker or Senate Majority Leader sticks it in the bottom of the pile on his desk.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 12:30pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Sep 09 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Quantity goes up, quality goes down. There's only so many hours. Smiley: wink

This has been the least productive Congress in decades. I'm sure they'll find the time.


That was more a response to Mr. lol there. I don't see time being a factor in the committee's troubles. The committee being faced with a lack of common ground, and a no real popular place to cut from.

Go go ambiguity I suppose. Smiley: clown



Edited, Sep 9th 2011 10:41am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#22 Sep 09 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
decayed wrote:
So its a political maneuver? Neat!

Well, I don't think there's anything in there that would cause him to cry if it passed. But it's certainly to his advantage to present centrist ideas and leave it to the GOP to either climb aboard the Obama train or refuse things like payroll tax cuts and employer tax credits for hiring returning veterans.

These aren't centrist ideas and I'm sure when gbaji finally pops into this thread, he'll explain why.


Where the hell is the "chicken" smiley? Could use it right about now.

As Ugly points out, just saying that your plan is centrist and consists of stuff both parties agree with and it should be passed right away (which he repeated like 5 times in the speech) doesn't make that actually true. It just means you said it. This is hardly the first time the Democrats have fallen over themselves to insist that something they're doing is "exactly what Republicans want, so if they oppose it they're just being partisans!".

The problem, as I've pointed out numerous times in the past is the incredible flexibility the Left seems to have when using descriptive words. They use the phrase "tax cut" in ways that don't actually involve cutting any taxes. They use the word "saving" in a way that is nearly synonymous with "spending". The word "fair" often means the exact opposite when used by the Dems. And these are just a few examples off the top of my head.


In the specific case of this jobs plan, it sure looks like he's doing more of the same thing he's done in the past. He's using the promise of jobs to throw money at the unions who support him, while leaving the more productive parts of the economy to pay the bill. Does anyone really think the problem with our economy is that we don't have enough public school teachers, or that our schools don't have sufficient interwebs? As I said in the other thread about jobs, we can choose to spend money on building up infrastructure, but it's a mistake to do this thinking it will create jobs or boost the economy.

While I'm sure there are a few ideas in there that conservatives will agree with, I'm equally certain that the proposed plan contains many times more poison pills within it. The very discriminatory application of funding for these new jobs is just the start of the problems. What exactly does he propose in terms of helping people refinance their homes, for example. What are these tax credits he proposes for as well?

There's also some interesting contradictions in the speech. He talks about how important it is to simplify the tax code and eliminate deductions, but then turns around and immediately proposes what are essentially just another set of deductions and exemptions to the tax code. So he's not so much for simplifying it as changing it to benefit groups he likes (to vote for him!). And predictably all the costs rest on his political enemies while the benefits go to his friends (with a bit sprinkled about for the regular people as well of course!).

He also talks about how it's different because it'll be paid for "and here's how:", but then follows that with basically saying we'll just pile it onto existing debt we have to pay for. I'm sorry, but when we just got dinged for basically failing to be aggressive enough about reducing out debt and questions about this super committee's ability to actually deliver on the debt reduction they've been asked to provide, it seems bizarre to just handwave away the costs of this program by saying that the super committee will just have to find another $500B to cut "somewhere".

And for those of us who already suspect that the Dems will do everything they can in that committee to pay off those debts with tax increases of some kind, this just ups the ante on an already questionable process. What happened to not just kicking the can down the road? This is basically just an extreme example of this and is just putting more pressure on an already boiling over debt problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Sep 09 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You... watched a different speech than the one broadcast last night?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Sep 09 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
He didn't have to watch the speech Joph, it's obvious what's going on.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#25 Sep 09 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Here's the list of tax-related things in the plan. Someone explain to be how these are targeted at some Democratic special interest groups or whatever...
The White House wrote:
- Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
- A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
- Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.
[...]
- A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.
[...]
- A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
[...]
- Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.

Gbaji's take on this when he wrote:
So he's not so much for simplifying it as changing it to benefit groups he likes (to vote for him!). And predictably all the costs rest on his political enemies while the benefits go to his friends (with a bit sprinkled about for the regular people as well of course!).

Ermmmm... yeah.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Sep 09 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You... watched a different speech than the one broadcast last night?


I read the transcript. Didn't get a chance to watch the speech. Was there some part I mentioned that wasn't accurate to the words he actually spoke? Given that inevitably when people complain that he's not doing what they thought he promised when they heard the speech you will be the first to dig out a transcript and show how he really didn't promise this, or that, or the other thing, I figure it's legitimate for me to start with the transcript today and save us some time.


Don't you agree? What about my post doesn't match what he said?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#27 Sep 09 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
There's always a 1-post lag when gbaji and joph go at it.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#28 Sep 09 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 09 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Hold on here, I was pointing out that they're not centrist ideas ( I have no idea as I didn't read the speech). I was simply pointing out what you'd say.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#30 Sep 09 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
What's funny is that Obama basically told the Senate "super-committee" created by the recent debt ceiling bill to find ways to pay for everything. "Hey guys, I know you're trying to find $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but can you spot me $500 billion next week?"

I don't see an issue with that. Presumably, we want the bill "paid for" so why not ask the bipartisan group tasked with "paying for" the debt ceiling increase to look at this as well? Had Obama just laid out $450b in cuts, the GOP would be jammering about how unreasonable all those cuts were.

I agree that the bill should be "paid for", but asking for the money up-front and then telling a bi-partisan commission to haggle over the cuts/taxes necessary to offset the spending is a sure-fire way to ensure that it doesn't get "paid for" at all.

Wherefore art thou, pay-go?
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#31 Sep 09 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Requiring the necessary cuts or taxes to fund a proposal is the very definition of PAYGO.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Sep 09 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Here's the list of tax-related things in the plan. Someone explain to be how these are targeted at some Democratic special interest groups or whatever...


Um... Ok.

The White House wrote:
- Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.


Interesting how "98 percent of businesses" is in the first sentence, but when you read further, it's really 98% of firms that have payroll below $5M. I'm actually a bit curious who that other 2% are also.

Quote:
- A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).


Again with a cap. Why? If it's a good idea for companies which hire a few hundred new workers, why wouldn't it be even better for companies which employ a few thousand new workers? We want to create "more jobs", right? Let's face it, the local candleshop owner is either going to start or not start up their business based on factors somewhat unrelated to whether there's a payroll tax cut in effect. It's the big business choosing to open a plant or office in the US versus opening it in India that we really care about. But this cap effectively means that this wont influence their choices at all, and that's where we're losing the most jobs.

To be fair, this isn't so much targeted at benefiting Dem buddies as excluding big business. Which politically kinda has the same effect.

Quote:
- Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.


I'm not sure what expensing is being talked about here, so I can't comment. Could be good, could be bad.

Quote:
- A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.


Yeah. This is purely political. Let's target veterans for benefits so that if Republicans oppose it, we can say that they hate veterans! Brilliant. Same argument I've made before. If your objective is to create productive jobs, then do so. Don't play political games.


Quote:
- A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.


This is so fraught with potential employment peril that it's hard to know where to begin. So if someone loses their job, they will now be at a $4k disadvantage getting a new one compared to someone who's been unemployed for a long period of time? This seems aimed at encouraging and even rewarding companies with revolving door employment practices. It also might have the interesting side effect of actually discouraging unemployed people from getting jobs quickly, since they might think that if they wait 6 months (or whatever time period "long term" means) they can land a better job because of the tax credit.

Fraught with peril! Danger Danger. Don't muck with businesses hiring choices. It's a bad idea.


Quote:
- Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.


Is this in addition to the other payroll cuts and the tax credits? I'm also curious how this doesn't negatively impact the Social Security fund. Is this some kind of magical unicorn riding new math? I just find it hard to trust someone who claims that we can reduce the amount of money going into a fund without negatively impacting the fund. Um... Seems like he's doing the typical liberal trick of redefining "negative impact".


He's buying votes with this bill. Nothing more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Sep 09 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If that was your attempt to show all sorts of Democratic favoritism, you did an exceptionally shitty job.

By the way, it's 98% of ALL businesses. Without the formatting in the original, it looks more confusing.

Quote:
Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
The President's plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.


Edited, Sep 9th 2011 3:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Sep 09 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Requiring the necessary cuts or taxes to fund a proposal is the very definition of PAYGO.


Which is what he's not doing. Unless you're using an incredibly loose definition of "requiring the necessary cuts". The principle behind paygo is that you must have equal offsetting cuts or taxes in the same piece of legislation in which you create new spending. Saying "we'll just have the super committee come up with an equal amount of cuts later" is a far far cry from that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Sep 09 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If that was your attempt to show all sorts of Democratic favoritism, you did an exceptionally shitty job.


However, he did do a great job at suggesting that Republicans hate small business and veterans. So there's that.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#36 Sep 09 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Saying "we'll just have the super committee come up with an equal amount of cuts later" is a far far cry from that.

No, the standard method of having no funding measures at all in mind is a "far, far cry". This is a fair bit closer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Sep 09 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
I think I'd feel better about this whole 'using the committee' thing if the they had already shown they were capable of producing results.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#38 Sep 09 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Legislatively, they'll get results on way or the other. Either they'll make the cuts voluntarily or else they'll happen automatically in a more draconian measure. Which makes complaints of "PAYGO" pretty silly since the bill will be paid (under the hypothetical theory that Congress takes it up at all).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Sep 09 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If that was your attempt to show all sorts of Democratic favoritism, you did an exceptionally shitty job.


Small businesses instead of large. Teachers. Schools. Construction workers. Gee. You're right, there's nothing about this plan that shows any favoritism. You just left most of it out of the list you made is all.

Quote:
Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?


Translation: Let's spend more money on Amtrak and other mass transit systems.

Quote:
There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now.


Well, he mentioned a bridge, so that's something. Smiley: oyvey

Quote:
It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects all across the country. And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere. We’re cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy.


So. We'll give money to poor people to own homes and eliminate red tape which might slow down the rate at which we spend money. Cause that'll ensure that there's less waste and that our money is used in the best way possible. And while we're at it, let's create Fannie/Freddie style systems for the construction industry! Cause that worked out so well for us last time.

Quote:
Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. (Applause.) We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work. This jobs plan builds on a program in Georgia that several Republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job.


I love how he points to a Republican plan that does nothing even remotely similar and claims that his plan builds on that plan. Is he really fooling anyone? There's a huge difference between saying that if you're on unemployment for more than X amount of time, we're going to require you to participate in a jobs program versus effectively rewarding people for staying unemployed for that length of time. The point is to *not* have more people staying unemployed. We want them to take jobs as soon as possible. Yes, even if they are lower paying than what they had. Because every person in the workforce instead of sitting on their hands is contributing to recovery. It just amazes me how Democrats can so easily and with straight faces claim that what they're doing is "just like what the GOP wants". It's not. It's not even close and it's scary that they either don't know the difference, or think that so many Americans wont be able to see that difference.

Quote:
Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your pocket will go into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire -- if we refuse to act -- middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We can’t let that happen. I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.


What is the "typical working family" he's talking about? See, I've just seen Democrats play word games so many times that I assume the worst when they use vague phrases like this. I also love how he once again attempts to take what he's doing, which is presumably very very different from what Republicans have done, and makes it look like he's just doing more of the same thing. What form does this "tax cut" take? How does one qualify for it? How much do you want to bet that this is more welfare in disguise?

Quote:
This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.


Modest cuts to medicare and medicaid? What cuts? For whom? Want to bet that those "cuts" will bear most heavily on those who've paid the most into those programs? And hey! While we're at it, let's make those wealthy people "pay their fair share". Ignore the fact that they already pay their fair share, and a good portion of everyone else's share as well.

You're right Joph! This is totally different rhetoric than we've heard in the past! Oh wait. No. It's really exactly the same.

Quote:
I am also -- I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it.


Ooooh! I love this one. Yeah, we oppose raising taxes based on who can best afford to pay. That's our motivation. Good to see he's not tossing any partisan barbs out there at all! Um... Earth to Obama. We oppose you raising taxes on those who we need most to create jobs.


Do I really have to go on? It's hard to not just quote nearly every single paragraph and point out how partisan it is. Even when he plays at being non-partisan, it's always with a backhanded swipe at Republicans: (You guys should like this because it's just more of what you want). IMO, this is one of the ugliest and most partisan speeches I've seen (ok, read) him give to date. He's playing pure politics with this one. It has nothing at all to do with jobs.


Which is kinda sad. Predictable, but sad.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 2:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Sep 09 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Legislatively, they'll get results on way or the other. Either they'll make the cuts voluntarily or else they'll happen automatically in a more draconian measure. Which makes complaints of "PAYGO" pretty silly since the bill will be paid (under the hypothetical theory that Congress takes it up at all).


But only the automatic effects that were legislated into the debt deal. I suppose we could assume that congress could toss an extra $500B into that default result if nothing is agreed to, but it's still Obama basically washing his hands of the hard part of governing and kicking the can down the road.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Sep 09 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Small businesses instead of large. Teachers. Schools. Construction workers.

You explicitly said the tax parts were designed to benefit those favored by Democrats....
You previously wrote:
He talks about how important it is to simplify the tax code and eliminate deductions, but then turns around and immediately proposes what are essentially just another set of deductions and exemptions to the tax code. So he's not so much for simplifying it as changing it to benefit groups he likes (to vote for him!). And predictably all the costs rest on his political enemies while the benefits go to his friends (with a bit sprinkled about for the regular people as well of course!).
...So strike your "Teacher! Construction worker!" crying.

This leaves us with you proclaiming Obama to be the champion of small businesses? Erm... ok. Got me there!

Annnnnnnnnnndddddd.... START SPINNING!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Sep 09 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
**
574 posts
So small businesses that are a sector that employs the most people in this country is less important then large businesses which have been exporting jobs since the 80s?
____________________________
.
#43 Sep 09 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
So small businesses that are a sector that employs the most people in this country is less important then large businesses which have been exporting jobs since the 80s?
If Obama is supporting small businesses, then yup. Spot on.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#44 Sep 09 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Before Gbaji starts his "You're not looking at the deltas! How dare you focus on one thing I said!" tear, the reason why this is important is because the tax incentives make up about half of the bill and Gbaji will be the first to parrot "It was all Democratic hand-outs!" (as already evidenced). So, before crying about the rest let's pause to properly establish exactly how this half is a giant Democratic favor-fest except for when it's crushing Obama's enemies.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 5:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Sep 09 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Gbaji's just reading from the GOP playbook.
- Obama bad!
- Corporate tax cuts good!
- Obama BAD!

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#46 Sep 09 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Gbaji's just reading from the GOP playbook.
- Obama bad!
- Corporate tax cuts good!
- Obama BAD!


This.

It wouldn't matter what the Democrats did. ANYTHING they do, even if it's something a Republican should like, will be held suspect by gbaji.
#47 Sep 09 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,072 posts
Honestly, the only hiring that the majority of businesses do when they already have five million a year in payroll is not in the US. It's usually because a business that large is expanding overseas.

I especially don't think the businesses where the CEO alone makes five million or more a year deserve any kind of tax break, ever again, especially if the business in question posts losses all the damn time.

Hey big corporations! Hire me! I'll gladly take ten million in compensation and I guarantee I'll do a better job than the majority of the morons running your firms!

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 9:03pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#48 Sep 09 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Small businesses instead of large. Teachers. Schools. Construction workers.

You explicitly said the tax parts were designed to benefit those favored by Democrats....


And those he wants to get to vote for him. Or did you miss that despite just quoting it again?


Um... And if a tax deduction is given to a small business but not a large one, you don't see some partisanship there? If it's given to businesses with government contracts, you don't see some partisanship there either?

You're also looking only at the changes that give things to people. Let's not forget that the "simplifications" he's proposing (ie: removal of exemptions and deductions) are pretty clearly targeted at traditional enemies of the Democrats. You're trying to look at just one half of the picture here.

Quote:
This leaves us with you proclaiming Obama to be the champion of small businesses? Erm... ok. Got me there!


Really? So 100% of this bill is tax cuts for small businesses with no other effects, no elimination of tax cuts or deductions or exemptions to anyone else?

It's not really about small businesses is it? That's just the latest Democrat smokescreen. They don't want to appear anti-business, so they hype all the stuff they're doing to help small businesses, while causing much greater harm to big business.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Sep 09 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
So small businesses that are a sector that employs the most people in this country is less important then large businesses which have been exporting jobs since the 80s?


Small businesses are important, but not for the reasons the Democrats have latched on to.

Small businesses are a means to prosperity for those who own the businesses. They mostly only provide entry level jobs for those they employ. There's value in that too, but the overwhelming majority of people employed by a small business will move on to a larger business seeking better pay and benefits (if they can). Focusing on small business is good, but not if the cost if big business jobs.


The problem with the Dems approach is that it basically gives people lots of low paying jobs which will barely let them get by (gee, I wonder why?), while making it increasingly harder for them to move onward with their career path. This is great if your vision of America is one where as large a percentage of the population as possible will welcome government handouts to help their low salaries get them by. This is not so great if your vision of American is one where we provide as much opportunity to as many people to succeed on their own merits and abilities as possible.

It is a gross oversimplification to say you are either "for or against" small business. But gross simplifications are what the Dems are great at when tossing out political rhetoric.


Edited, Sep 9th 2011 6:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Sep 09 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,072 posts
Huh, one of those "under five mil in payroll" businesses I worked for a few years back had a full roster of C-level execs, account managers, program managers, directors, supervisors, etc etc, in addition to the 50-odd "entry level" positions as well. The president of the company paid himself the princely sum of 150K a year, which is megabucks in this part of Georgia.

Incidentally, I swore I'd only go back if I got hired on as their Director of IT.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#51 Sep 09 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And those he wants to get to vote for him. Or did you miss that despite just quoting it again?

I suppose he's guilty about wanting American workers and business owners to vote for him, the little scamp. You keep coming up with innovative ideas like that and Karl Rove is going to be out of a job.

Quote:
And if a tax deduction is given to a small business but not a large one, you don't see some partisanship there?

No, not at all. Hilariously, shouting about how "small businesses are the engine of the economy and why won't Obama help them?" is a standard page out of the pubbie playbook. I guess until Obama tries to help them, then he's "partisan" for not helping big business and his "favoring" small business is dirty politics Smiley: laugh

Quote:
You're also looking only at the changes that give things to people. Let's not forget that the "simplifications" he's proposing (ie: removal of exemptions and deductions) are pretty clearly targeted at traditional enemies of the Democrats.

Nice vague non-answer. Best you have, I guess. See, this is what happens when you just parrot the radio and blogs rather than learning something -- you make embarrassingly incorrect statements and are eventually forced into remarks like the above.

Quote:
So 100% of this bill is tax cuts for small businesses with no other effects, no elimination of tax cuts or deductions or exemptions to anyone else?

Confused much? I was mocking your complaint that this plan would help small businesses. Whatever "this is all small business deductions" strawman you have going is your own.

Well, way to show us all the vast Democratic conspiracy at work here. I think we've all learned a lot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Bijou, Poldaran, Tasera, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (51)