FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Republicans Block Jobs Bill for Teachers & Emergency Wor





handfleisch
To protect millionaires and to sabotage Obama's economic recovery plans, the Republicans are blocking all the jobs bills in the Congress. It can't get much worse than this. The GOP really wants the economy to get worse, for unemployment to remain high or get higher, so Obama will get the blame. And of course they had to stop a .5 percent tax on millionaires.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66526.html
Quote:

President Barack Obama’s jobs agenda hit another roadblock in the Senate on Thursday night, as the two parties remained locked in a bitter stalemate with the economy sputtering and tens of millions looking for work.

In their first attempt to advance individual pieces of the president’s sprawling American Jobs Act, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to move forward a $35 billion package for states and localities to hire and prevent the layoffs of teachers and first responders.

A united GOP Conference, along with three members of the Senate Democratic Caucus — Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) — voted 50-50 to block a debate on the package, which would have been funded by a 0.5 percent surtax on those earning more than $1 million.
ocalhoun
While I certainly don't agree with what the Republicans are doing here... I don't exactly agree with the other side either.

Throwing money to local governments to pay their workers is just a band-aid fix; it won't permanently solve anything.
It also has some procedural problems in how it works:
-It causes more growth in federal government
-It gives the federal government more leverage against local governments... such a subsidy would likely become permanent (such things usually do), except that whenever a local government was refusing to give in to undue federal control, the feds could threaten to take that money away if they don't get cooperation. (As has happened with road and educational subsidies on occasion.)
-Taxing 'millionaires' can backfire, given time and inflation. There may come a time when even poor people make over a million a year, and I doubt the bill would be changed to reflect that... rather the base that this tax is applied to would become broader and broader. It would be better to word it as a tax on the top 5% of income earners, since this will stay the same despite any inflation/deflation changes.
deanhills
I have a better idea. Why not get the BAILED OUT BANKS to create jobs to the equivalent of the bail out money that had been made available to them at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009? Add to the calculation of the money the equivalent of the value that the stocks of that Bank have increased from the point when the money was loaned to them to the value that the stocks are worth today. Jobs to be made available could be a list of a core group of industries that have been bleeding job wise and that need workers badly. Instead of just cheap daily wager or temporary service jobs.
Question
jmi256
Do you realize the Democrats control the Senate don’t you? They think Obama’s second stimulus is bound to fail just as the first one did, and they don’t want to have their names associated with his dismal economic failures that have burdened taxpayers while enriching Obama’s campaign donors, all in the name of “stimulus.”

Even the small portions that might make sense have been rejected by Democrats, who would rather hold out for even more taxpayer money in which to line the pockets of their own campaign contributors and sink the American economy in the process than do anything that would actually help.

From the article that you posted:
Quote:
And as the economic problems dominate his presidential campaign, the president has struggled to find consensus in a gridlocked Capitol, including in the Democratic-controlled Senate where the $35 billion plan garnered one fewer Democratic vote than his $447 billion proposal.

The Senate on Thursday night also rejected by a 57-43 vote a separate portion of the president’s jobs bill, pushed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), eliminating a much-criticized rule allowing federal and local agencies to withhold 3 percent of payments to contractors.

Ten Democrats, which included a mix of moderates and those up for reelection, voted for the McConnell amendment, but 60 votes were needed to break a Democratic-led filibuster.

“It turns out there is a very sensible provision in the president’s second stimulus bill that would help businesses across the country,” McConnell said late Thursday night.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:

Quote:

“It turns out there is a very sensible provision in the president’s second stimulus bill that would help businesses across the country,” McConnell said late Thursday night.

Ah, 'good' to see Washington's still looking for ways to help businesses.


Well... not really... But it is amusing that they're doing so openly.
Blaster
Let me start by saying I'm in a Macroeconomics class currently. It is by far one of the saddest classes I've taken ever.

On that note going on to this bill and the issues surrounding it. My personal opinion on it is we need jobs. We should really be looking for ways to create them. I'm currently a college student. I have NO idea what I am going to be able to find once I graduate. It scares the living shit out of me every day I think about it. The way we got out of the great depression had a lot to do with World War 2. Thats not going to work now considering we are already in 2 wars that of which we CAN'T PAY FOR.

Lets face it. We need to hike taxes. Taxes havn't kept up with times. This is putting us further into dept. This is leaving no money elsewhere for our problems at home. I'm sure you can piece together what i'm getting at here.
ocalhoun
Blaster wrote:

Lets face it. We need to hike taxes. Taxes havn't kept up with times. This is putting us further into dept. This is leaving no money elsewhere for our problems at home. I'm sure you can piece together what i'm getting at here.

Yep... raise taxes and regulate the banks...
(Although comparisons to the great depression are not valid; the two downturns are largely for different reasons, and will have different solutions.)

That would fix the problem, largely... But both are impossible politically.
The people have enough control to keep tax-raisers out of office (even if it is irrational), and the corporations have enough control to keep regulators out of office.
Therefore, someone who wants to raise taxes and regulate would be doubly barred from getting elected.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
Blaster wrote:

Lets face it. We need to hike taxes. Taxes havn't kept up with times. This is putting us further into dept. This is leaving no money elsewhere for our problems at home. I'm sure you can piece together what i'm getting at here.

The people have enough control to keep tax-raisers out of office (even if it is irrational), and the corporations have enough control to keep regulators out of office.
Therefore, someone who wants to raise taxes and regulate would be doubly barred from getting elected.

"The people"? 70% or more say taxes should be raised. I think you make this mistake because we all get ingrained with the BS on talk radio, the mainstream media in general that "the people" are choosing this radical tax system that only benefits the wealthy. In fact it's the rich through a money-controlled political system that make sure their taxes stay low. We have to keep aware as we live in this sea of lies and not let these falsehoods into our minds.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

"The people"? 70% or more say taxes should be raised.

Yep, and losing the other 30% is easily enough to lose an election.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

"The people"? 70% or more say taxes should be raised.

Yep, and losing the other 30% is easily enough to lose an election.
wrong answer, please try again
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

"The people"? 70% or more say taxes should be raised.

Yep, and losing the other 30% is easily enough to lose an election.
wrong answer, please try again

I'll believe you when I see a politician win by running on a platform of raising taxes.
taytay
but mitt romney's a mormon!!! YEAH!!! haha. That's not actually bad, I just think it's funny how immature some people act...
Related topics
What is your favourite movie?
Freakonomics
[OFFICIAL]What song are you listening to right now ?
Who is your Favourite Director?
Aliens and Us....
PULP FICTION
The Amazing Race 11: All Stars
Teste psicológico de Carl Jung
Woman attempts to kill husband with anti-freeze
::... Bill Gate & God ...::
Principal, Athletic Director Could Face Jail Time For Prayer
Another Reckless Tax/Spending Bill
Another “Occupier” makes terroristic threats
Obama stimulus: +millions of American jobs
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.