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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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