|
|
|
|
|
Republicans Continue To Block Progress On Jobs Plan
Brian Beutler | February 8, 2010, 12:09PM
Remember how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted there'd be a vote on a jobs bill today? Well, maybe that was a bit premature.
Two major obstacles now stand between Democrats and the jobs package they'd like to pass before next week's President's Day recess: A ton of snow, and equally substantial GOP obstructionism. The question is: which will thaw first?
The snow has pushed the Senate floor schedule back at least a day--a significant amount of time given the crowded nature of the calendar. But Democrats still don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, and unless they can win over at least one Republican, they may adjourn this coming weekend empty-handed.
What's the hang up? Republicans are working with Democrats on one key aspect of the legislation: tax breaks for employers who hire new employees. But beyond such a measure, Republicans are balking at supporting a full package. And with Democrats now one vote shy of a 60-vote supermajority, they will need one GOPer to break ranks if they want the package to overcome a filibuster.
So far, Democratic rhetoric has been gentle. Last week, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said "You need two to tango. And you need Republicans for bipartisanship."
"Hope is prospective," he said. "We don't have bipartisanship at this moment. I hope we'll have it in a matter of minutes, hours, days."
Days later, they still don't have it. Which makes you wonder if and when leadership will pivot to directly call out Republicans for unanimously filibustering a jobs relief package when unemployment hovers at near 10 percent.
MULTIPLE SOURCE LINKS @
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/republicans-continue-to-block-progress-on-jobs-plan.php#more
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
was there anyone who would not have expected this? They do not want anything to get through that may make Obama look good. They want to be able to say he is doing nothing for employment.
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true, is really true, there would be little hope of advance......
Orville Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the problem that you seem to ignore. Obama passed a "stimulus" package that was suppose to keep unemployment under 8%, it topped out at a national average of 10.2%. Public sector jobs and SEIU membership increased minimally while translating to a cost of roughly $200k per job "created". After spending 800 billion dollars, Obama now wants a new stimulus package, or as democrats are told to call it, a "jobs bill".
Trust is the missing element. While you can shift blame and say it is all Bush's fault, the fact of the matter is that Obama has already spent $800 billion with little or no affect what-so-ever. Why should republicans simply jump on board to another stimulus package simply because it has things like tax cuts and tax credits, which should have been in the original bill? Why should it cost the tax payers another half trillion dollars to do what should have been done in the first stimulus?
Something needs to be done to stimulate jobs. This was true a year ago, before Obama spent the initial $800 billion that only deepened our recession. Now he wants more money because his policies fail and it is the republican's fault?
Spend, spend, spend and if you don't agree with a spend our way out of this recession, you are an obstructionist. It's nonsense.
Time after time the American people are voting out democrats for their support of mindless spending for a social agenda that does not benefit our economy or the American worker. Now after trillions have been wasted, they want even more.
Your report fails to point out the parts of the bill that republicans are rejecting. Does the bill dump more money into the public sector and creation of more SEIU jobs that will only increase the budget of an already failing federal budget? Does the bill increase taxes in other places to compensate for lost revenue of the tax cuts, and if so how does this affect the viability of the bill? To simply state it as republicans blocking a jobs bill is intellectually dishonest. Obviously they are for the tax cuts and tax credits to small businesses and employers since they screamed from the roof tops that these things were lacking in the first Obama stimulus. Now they cannot conform to this bill and liberals refuse to highlight the reasons why. You, nor I, know exactly what parts of this bill republicans are against and I find that suspicious.
It's all just more of the same nonsense out of congress...partisan hackery, on both sides. Democrats need to realize that bipartisanship is not when republicans agree to 100% of what they want and republicans need to realize that they too will not get 100% of what they want. Both sides are dug in and to throw mud at one side while giving the other side a pass just shows the sheepish nature of your thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government doesn't create jobs as democrats want to believe. Businesses, the private sector, the American people are what create jobs. Stimulis money is only a short term boost. Kind of like a drug. It's good for a short period but then it wears off.
When there is long term tax relief it keeps more money in the private sector. Whent there's more money in the private sector there is more spending. When there is more spending there is more product being sold and manufactured. When there is more products being sold and manufactured businesses make more money. When businesses make more money the owners expand and hire more employees. When businesse make more money so do their employees and new employees. When there's more money being made it increases the revenue to the government. AND it stimulates the economy. Just by lowering taxes.
This is what real conservatives want. The American people to have power and control over their own money.......and destiny.
The liberal? They want more control of our money and our destiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stormweaver - Where did President Obama EVER say that the purpose of the stimulus was to keep unemployment below 8%? I want to see a quote and a source link to back up what you're saying.
The purpose of the stimulus was to STIMULATE the economy - and that's happening. It's not going to happen overnight.
(Oh, and BTW, since I'm sure you won't hear anything about it on Faux news - unemployment is dropping and sales are up - but don't let the facts get in the way of your doom and gloom diatribe:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/u-s-economy-sales-at-wholesalers-climb-stockpiles-decrease.html
BTW, why do you think Republicans keep showing up for ribbon cutting ceremonies for programs and projects funded by the same stimulus money they claimed they didn't want? Seems to me they'd be holding a press conference each time one of these takes place, telling people why the very projects they're celebrating are a bad thing.
And why are some of them asking for more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AK - We had eight years of tax cuts - that's a decrease in revenue that caused a 12 year projected surplus to be pissed away in 1 year, and left us with record deficits. Cutting taxes for the wealthy while running up debt is part of what got us into this mess in the FIRST place.
And you have to remember, the last bunch of Republicans who ran the country were NOT TRUE conservatives, they were NEO-conservatives. Fiscal responsibility is not part of the platform - to them, and I quote, "deficits don't matter". They're more into "dine and dash" - run up the tab, give your buddies what they want, then skip out on the bill and leave it to the next person in office to figure out how to pay for it all.
Maybe when we have a SURPLUS again (like the one Bush inherited from Clinton), maybe THEN we can start talking about cutting taxes again. Right now, we've got to figure out how to increase the revenue enough to pay for what we need PLUS pay the bill left by the last administration.
You can't get something for nothing, and it's wrong to keep trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KestrelBrighteyes (2/10/2010)Stormweaver - Where did President Obama EVER say that the purpose of the stimulus was to keep unemployment below 8%? I want to see a quote and a source link to back up what you're saying. The purpose of the stimulus was to STIMULATE the economy - and that's happening. It's not going to happen overnight. (Oh, and BTW, since I'm sure you won't hear anything about it on Faux news - unemployment is dropping and sales are up - but don't let the facts get in the way of your doom and gloom diatribe:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-09/u-s-economy-sales-at-wholesalers-climb-stockpiles-decrease.htmlBTW, why do you think Republicans keep showing up for ribbon cutting ceremonies for programs and projects funded by the same stimulus money they claimed they didn't want? Seems to me they'd be holding a press conference each time one of these takes place, telling people why the very projects they're celebrating are a bad thing. And why are some of them asking for more?
I am really shocked that someone as intelligent as you can claim that you never heard of Obama promising that unemployment would not exceed 8% if the stimulus bill was passed... I mean it was one of the fundamental promises by Obama. Here is an article for you...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2140651/mr_president_how_can_we_trust_you.html
You are incorrect that tax cuts were not successful in the Bush administration. During the Bush administration, over 7 million jobs were created by his tax cuts, 4 million of which were lost in his last year in office due to his spending habits and democrats blocking more oversight on the finacial sector. That gives a 3 million jobs surplus, get your facts straight.
We do agree on one point, that most republicans are no fiscal conservatives. As a registered Republican, I strive to vote these progressives out of the republican party any chance I get. If a so called republican is for higher taxes, bigger government and entitlement programs (such as Bush's drug plan) I vote against them.
Taxes have NEVER increased revenue collection by the federal government. Perhaps in the short run but higher corporate taxes, income taxes and so on, only force businesses to find "safe havens" such as Las Vegas, Texas and other states who lack such things as a state tax. Even worse, it drives companies to relocate outside of the US to flee from oppresive taxation which results in even more loss of jobs.
America is a service industry economy. Meaning our eonomy is driven by discretionary spending. The higher the taxes, the less money people have to spend which impacts business revenue and eventually jobs. Less people working means less tax revenue collected by the government as well as less taxes received from corporate taxes due to lower revenue. Tax increases only hurt the economy and actually lessen the tax revenue collected by the government.
The problem is government spending. The government needs to stop spending tax dollars on wasteful garbage. They don't need more money, they need to spend less. A simple fact you seem to miss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kestrel:
And you have to remember, the last bunch of Republicans who ran the country were NOT TRUE conservatives ,
That I agree with. They are becoming an endagered species in Washington which has led to the spirited tea parties.
Maybe when we have a SURPLUS again (like the one Bush inherited from Clinton), maybe THEN we can start talking about cutting taxes again. Right now, we've got to figure out how to increase the revenue enough to pay for what we need PLUS pay the bill left by the last administration.
But we weren't at war when Bill Clinton was in office. This war has cost a s*** load of money.
You mentioned figuring out how to increase revenue to the federal government. Well sure if we pay more in taxes that might increase revenue but that increase will only be temporary.
I'm quoting from memory of two years ago and don't remember the exact numbers but 10% of tax payers pay well over 75% of federal taxes. 5% pay about 50%. The top 1% pay over 30%.
The top 10% earned less than 100k/year
The top 5% earned 125k or more a year.
The top 1% earned more than 300k/year.
In these categories are the one's (for the most part) who own businesses and hire people. If their taxes are raised they will have less money. So in order to compensate for that loss in 'their' revenue they cut down on expenses (which is what all dems and reps should try). Such as buying new cars furniture vacations etc. Or they will raise the prices of their goods or services. Or they might cut down on employees. Another thing they do (which is what I sometimes do in my business) defer payments due them to keep them in a lower tax bracket. All of this results in less money in the economy and that results in less money being made by Americans and that means less revenue will go to the government.
That's why we need a flat rate tax for everyone. Everyone pays the same rate if they're making 25k or 250k. If memory servers Aruba has lowered their flat tax because that system greatly increased government revenue.
You can't get something for nothing, and it's wrong to keep trying.
Now you're sounding like a Reagan conservative! *kiss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm quoting from memory of two years ago and don't remember the exact numbers but 10% of tax payers pay well over 75% of federal taxes. 5% pay about 50%. The top 1% pay over 30%.
The top 10% earned less than 100k/year
The top 5% earned 125k or more a year.
The top 1% earned more than 300k/year.
Your math is a bit odd.
16% of the people paid 155% of the taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I asked for a QUOTE - meaning, something President Obama actually said, with dates, venue, etc. Why would you think that a post where someone else said, "he said it!" would mean any more than YOU saying that he said it?
Try again.
You are incorrect that tax cuts were not successful in the Bush administration. During the Bush administration, over 7 million jobs were created by his tax cuts, 4 million of which were lost in his last year in office due to his spending habits and democrats blocking more oversight on the finacial sector. That gives a 3 million jobs surplus, get your facts straight.
We do agree on one point, that most republicans are no fiscal conservatives. As a registered Republican, I strive to vote these progressives out of the republican party any chance I get. If a so called republican is for higher taxes, bigger government and entitlement programs (such as Bush's drug plan) I vote against them.
The people you're referring to in the Republican party are not Progressives - they are neo-conservatives. But don't let reality get in the way of your diatribe.
[quote} Taxes have NEVER increased revenue collection by the federal
government. [/quote]
Excuse me? Where do you think the money used to fund the US government comes from?
Perhaps in the short run but higher corporate taxes, income taxes and so on, only force businesses to find "safe havens" such as Las Vegas, Texas and other states who lack such things as a state tax.
So we need to eliminate those tax havens, and the ones offshore. The Justice Department under this administration has already requested the names of Americans hiding their money in UBS - that's a good start, but by no means the end of it.
But at least it only took you one sentence to shift from "never" to "perhaps in the short run".
|
|
|
|