Obamer's job billFollow

There's always a 1-post lag when gbaji and joph go at it.

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.

Requiring the necessary cuts or taxes to fund a proposal is the very definition of PAYGO.

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.



Edited, Sep 9th 2011 3:45pm by Jophiel

However, he did do a great job at suggesting that Republicans hate small business and veterans. So there's that.

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.

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.



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



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



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.



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.



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?



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.



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

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

If Obama is supporting small businesses, then yup. Spot on.

Gbaji's just reading from the GOP playbook.
- Obama bad!
- Corporate tax cuts good!
- Obama BAD!

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

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

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.


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


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.


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.