Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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 ****-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 ******** 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
******
20,518 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
******
21,262 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: Retired December 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 and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#6 Sep 09 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 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
******
20,518 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
******
35,374 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.


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
****
7,546 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 ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#11 Sep 09 2011 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 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?"
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#12 Sep 09 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 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
*****
14,567 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*
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#14 Sep 09 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 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
*****
13,369 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
******
49,745 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
*****
13,369 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
*****
13,369 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
******
34,933 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 **** 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
******
34,933 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
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (68)