Jobs Bill

[Townsend]

Isn't it amazing you have to consistently ask for those?

Even with the "it will improve your reputation" advice.

[Gaspar]

Unanimous?  When is anything unanimus?

Jeez, finish out the statement.


But Democratic leaders believe the change will broaden the bill's popularity in their caucus.

"We're going to move to have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more," Reid said at a Wednesday press conference.

"Drawing the line at a million dollars is the right thing to do. In the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of households that make $250,000 or $300,000 a year. They are not rich," said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "In large parts of the country that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that is associated with wealth in America."  

Can you link the approval ratings?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

I do this because I love you.

[Townsend]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

I do this because I love you.

"generic" not "any".  Certainly not anything in the field at the moment.

End of the article:

generic GOP candidate leads among male voters by 13 points and runs even with the president among female voters.

Voters under 30 continue to favor Obama, while their elders like the Republican better.

Voters not affiliated with either major political party prefer the Republican candidate by a 45% to 34% margin.   

Most Tea Party members (89%) support the generic Republican.  Among non-members, Obama leads 52% to 35%. 

Two-out-of-three (66%) in the Political Class opt for Obama, while 55% of Mainstream voters support the generic Republican. 

In the latest Generic Congressional Ballot, Republicans have jumped back to a six-point lead over Democrats.  This is the widest gap between the two parties in a month of weekly tracking. 

As of now, the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary race is all about Perry and Romney, with no other candidate reaching double-digit support.  Among GOP voters in New Hampshire, Romney is the clear favorite over Perry, 39% to 18%.

The number of Republicans and Democrats in the country is just about even. In fact, the gap between the parties is the smallest it has ever been in nearly nine years of monthly tracking.

[Gaspar]

CBO finished scoring Obama's jobs bill.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the "American Jobs Act" would make the federal deficit jump $288 billion in 2012. In other words, the 2012 deficit would rise by about twenty-five percent--from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The most recent budget fight between Republicans and Democrats resulted in just a $22 billion cut to the 2012 deficit.

One tiny step forward, two leaps backwards.

[Townsend]

CBO finished scoring Obama's jobs bill.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the "American Jobs Act" would make the federal deficit jump $288 billion in 2012. In other words, the 2012 deficit would rise by about twenty-five percent--from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The most recent budget fight between Republicans and Democrats resulted in just a $22 billion cut to the 2012 deficit.

One tiny step forward, two leaps backwards.

I'm still of the opinion that someone might trust your posts a little bit if you linked them to a supporting graph/article/story.

[we vs us]

CBO finished scoring Obama's jobs bill.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the "American Jobs Act" would make the federal deficit jump $288 billion in 2012. In other words, the 2012 deficit would rise by about twenty-five percent--from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The most recent budget fight between Republicans and Democrats resulted in just a $22 billion cut to the 2012 deficit.

One tiny step forward, two leaps backwards.

Fact-checking your posts is becoming such a pain in the donkey.  And yet I feel it necessary to sweep up after your incomplete and uncited fragments. 

Via the CBO's Director's Blog:

What Is The Impact of the Bills on the Federal Deficit?

CBO estimates that enacting the President's plan would increase the budget deficit by $288 billion in 2012 and decrease deficits by $3 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimated deficit reduction of $3 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts and $450 billion in additional tax revenue from the offsets specified in the bill.

CBO estimates that enacting Senator Reid's alternative bill would increase the budget deficit by $285 billion in 2012 and decrease deficits by $6 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimated deficit reduction of $6 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts and $453 billion in additional tax revenue from the offset specified in the bill.

So yes.  It increases the deficit -- IN ONE YEAR -- and then actually offsets it more by $3B over the next decade or so. 

Another great nugget came out during the CBO testimony to the Super Committee last week . . . turns out that full employment would trim our existing deficit by a third.  The implication, of course, is that the best and biggest deficit trimming strategy would be to get the whole country working, immediately.  It'd be pretty smart to actually start down that road, wouldn't it?   

[Gaspar]

http://news.yahoo.com/spin-meter-obama-disconnects-rhetoric-reality-081418391.html

Interesting.  The AP is usually in his pocket.

[Gaspar]

Now it looks like this whole "Jobs Initiative" is no more than a campaign fundraising effort.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-jobs-council-stacked-with-democratic-donors/

[dbacks fan]

Now it looks like this whole "Jobs Initiative" is no more than a campaign fundraising effort.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-jobs-council-stacked-with-democratic-donors/

Were you suprised by this? It seems that almost everything he says is some form of a campaign speech.

[we vs us]

Now it looks like this whole "Jobs Initiative" is no more than a campaign fundraising effort.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-jobs-council-stacked-with-democratic-donors/

So why is this a bad thing?  Walk me through the damage that this causes to his council, the jobs bill, and to the strength of the Republic in general.  I'm not seeing it. 

[Gaspar]

So why is this a bad thing?  Walk me through the damage that this causes to his council, the jobs bill, and to the strength of the Republic in general.  I'm not seeing it. 

It's just that every time he talks about jobs it reminds me of my 6 year old talking about paleontology.  He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.

This was the man that vowed to eliminate lobby money from the White House.  He now surrounds himself with stables of donors ready to regurgitate cash in exchange for the next big stimulus deal.

[we vs us]

It's just that every time he talks about jobs it reminds me of my 6 year old talking about paleontology.  He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.

This was the man that vowed to eliminate lobby money from the White House.  He now surrounds himself with stables of donors ready to regurgitate cash in exchange for the next big stimulus deal.

The jobs bill as I've heard it described does nothing for Facebook or Amazon, investment firms or banks, Xerox or UC Berkley.  If there's corruption or pay for play, I'm not seeing it. 

Also:  I'm not saying Obama is somehow above the law or angelic and impossible to be corrupted, but just because you don't like the guy and like to see failure in every possible thing he does, doesn't mean that everything around him is in fact fatally flawed.  Aside from your vague assertions, there's no evidence that the makeup of his jobs council is in the least bit improper.

[Conan71]

It's just that every time he talks about jobs it reminds me of my 6 year old talking about paleontology.  He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.

This was the man that vowed to eliminate lobby money from the White House.  He now surrounds himself with stables of donors ready to regurgitate cash in exchange for the next big stimulus deal.

And quite interesting he's surrounded himself with exactly the people for whom the Occupy Wall Street hoodlums are vilifying.  What are the chances that the corporate tax structure is going to change for multi-nationals like GE or Xerox while they are bundling millions for President Obama?  Slim and none.  All this talk of tax increases by President Obama is really cheap electioneering that he has zero intention of following up on.  Blame for that failure will go right at the feet of "obstructionist Republicans".

At least the Rethugs are honest about not wanting to raise taxes rather than spinning a huge yarn about wanting to raise them but someone else won't let them.

[carltonplace]

Is it too simplistic to think that creating more employed people creates more demand which creates even more employees which creates more tax payers which creates more income which decreases the deficit provided we keep the big 3 expenditures in check?

If all of these things are true, why is a jobs bill a bad thing if corporations are holding off hiring until demand increases?

[Conan71]

Is it too simplistic to think that creating more employed people creates more demand which creates even more employees which creates more tax payers which creates more income which decreases the deficit provided we keep the big 3 expenditures in check?

If all of these things are true, why is a jobs bill a bad thing if corporations are holding off hiring until demand increases?

Carlton, your premise is correct.  The more liberal members on here keep shooting it down why it's not happening because either they don't like the messenger or they don't understand what decision processes go into creating new jobs:

They don't want to hire in the face of uncertain increased employment costs of Obamacare, increased regulations, and increased hostility toward wealthy small business owners in this country.  Large multi-nationals are going great guns and hiring, it's just that they are doing it overseas where their investment is welcomed with much lower barriers to commerce.

Sorry guys, not making this up, it's what happens when you erect too many barriers in your own country.