How do Republicans define "job creation bills"?

[rdean]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ost-says-gop-has-sponsored-zero-job-creation/

This post has been circulating.

Politifact has rated it "Pants on Fire".

Go ahead and read the article. Then you get to this part:

When comparing the numbers, we allowed for some variation due to the list being continuously updated as new bills are introduced. That said, we found that the numbers in the Internet post were quite close to what was listed in THOMAS for abortion, religion, family relationships, marriage, firearms, taxation and government investigations.

What about "job creation"? As it turned out, we couldn’t find a topic area by that name at all.

-------------------------------

So after further study, they come up with these numbers:

Economic development: 64 bills
Economic performance and conditions: 55 bills
Employee hiring: 24 bills
Employment and training programs: 172 bills
Labor and employment: 151 bills
Unemployment: 107 bills
Wages and earnings: 143 bills

-------------------------------

Now this is where it turns hilarious. You see, what's in a "name"?

"Job creation" means different things to different parties.

Most conservatives today are dead-set against traditional forms of government-based economic stimulus known as Keynesian economics, primarily spending initiatives. So if "job creation" is defined to primarily include Keynesian initiatives, then Republicans aren’t going to be sponsoring any "job creation" bills. Instead, Republicans argue that tax cuts and budget cutting will help the economy prosper.

-------------------------------

From their "ruling":

the definition of what constitutes a "job creation" bill is open to significant debate.

-----------------------------

They are saying Pants on Fire because Republicans called their jobs bills "jobs bills". That's the reason. Republicans hold on to the ideas that cutting taxes on rich people and gutting the government will somehow create jobs. This same nonsense has been tried again and again and every time it fails, Republicans blame the failure on Democrats.

I'm giving a "Pants on Fire" to their "Pants on Fire".

 

[Bombur]

Cutting taxes can be considered a job bill imo.

Cutting spending not so much. If they did both I think it is ok calling it a job bill.

 

[Avatar4321]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

 

[rdean]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

 

[theHawk]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, they worked great. 5% unemployment.

Then the Democrats happened in 2007.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Oh whatthefuckever... Obama has raised taxes and we're faced with what? 35% true unemployment?

Yeah.. keep babbling about Bush bird-brain... Barry Obumbler has been in office five-plus years.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, unemployment numbers were lower until the housing market happened. You can thank all the assholes in DC for that but you won't. You'll cheer on this current travesty.

 

[Clementine]

Blog post says GOP has sponsored "zero" job creation bills | PolitiFact

This post has been circulating.

Politifact has rated it "Pants on Fire".

Go ahead and read the article. Then you get to this part:

When comparing the numbers, we allowed for some variation due to the list being continuously updated as new bills are introduced. That said, we found that the numbers in the Internet post were quite close to what was listed in THOMAS for abortion, religion, family relationships, marriage, firearms, taxation and government investigations.

What about "job creation"? As it turned out, we couldn’t find a topic area by that name at all.

-------------------------------

So after further study, they come up with these numbers:

Economic development: 64 bills
Economic performance and conditions: 55 bills
Employee hiring: 24 bills
Employment and training programs: 172 bills
Labor and employment: 151 bills
Unemployment: 107 bills
Wages and earnings: 143 bills

-------------------------------

Now this is where it turns hilarious. You see, what's in a "name"?

"Job creation" means different things to different parties.

Most conservatives today are dead-set against traditional forms of government-based economic stimulus known as Keynesian economics, primarily spending initiatives. So if "job creation" is defined to primarily include Keynesian initiatives, then Republicans aren’t going to be sponsoring any "job creation" bills. Instead, Republicans argue that tax cuts and budget cutting will help the economy prosper.

-------------------------------

From their "ruling":

the definition of what constitutes a "job creation" bill is open to significant debate.

-----------------------------

They are saying Pants on Fire because Republicans called their jobs bills "jobs bills". That's the reason. Republicans hold on to the ideas that cutting taxes on rich people and gutting the government will somehow create jobs. This same nonsense has been tried again and again and every time it fails, Republicans blame the failure on Democrats.

I'm giving a "Pants on Fire" to their "Pants on Fire".

I refer you to the liberal politicians in NY who gave amazing tax breaks to any small businesses who would like to come there. They know it works.

Government is incapable of passing job creating bills. What they can do is cease to create job-killing bills, like Obamacare. NY just turned the clock back on high taxes because they knew that they were taxing companies to the point that they were leaving in droves.

Getting rid of the Federal Reserve and too much government intervention in the private sector would be a giant step toward a healthy economy.

Sometimes, it's what government doesn't do that helps the most. Seriously, we can't afford anymore help from politicians.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

So now we're worried about the DEFINITION of what a job creating bill is? Ha,ha,ha... If this wasn't so sad it would be even funnier.

Government is too expensive, too redundant, too ineffective, too much of a drain on the economy and on working class Americans. Of ten things it does, it may do one of them fairly well. But honestly, I've never seen anyone before bow down to the federal registry and say a few hallelujahs. But you know what RDean, if it's the federal government you want to worship, I say go for it. Where I draw the line is when you want me to pay for it.

How's that Bureau of Silly Walks working out for you? I figure with Barry and his criminal minions in charge, we'd have one of those by now.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Government is incapable of passing job creating bills. What they can do is cease to create job-killing bills, like Obamacare. NY just turned the clock back on high taxes because they knew that they were taxing companies to the point that they were leaving in droves.

Ding ding ding!

 

[rdean]

Republicans have this fantasy that government is so inept and worthless. The problem is that every time they are in office, they prove that to be a fact. They say government can't work because they can't make government work. Red State governments are proof they are correct.

And when you say "jobs bill", they think "cut taxes". So, why is this idiotic?

First, taxes are finite. You can only cut so far. Then once you are at zero, you start giving subsidies the way they do to oil companies.

About the only real way government can create jobs in this country is through modernizing infrastructure. What that means to a Republican? Who knows.

The economy grows when people "buy stuff". But if they have no money, they can't buy anything. Republicans don't believe that. They think rich people are some kind of jobs charity. Shovel more money to the rich and they will create jobs. Republicans really believe that. Clear thinking people think that's laughable. Try to figure out why.

 

[Billy000]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, they worked great. 5% unemployment.

Then the Democrats happened in 2007.

Job growth under Bush was pathetic. The lower unemployment had very little to do with Bush.

Obama's stimulus is the reason we are in a recovery instead of the terrifying free fall of jobs that began in Bush's last 4 months.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How do Republicans define job creation bills?

Uhhhm... bills that create jobs, perhaps?

 

[Bfgrn]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, they worked great. 5% unemployment.

Then the Democrats happened in 2007.

Empty head = empty rhetoric

Really? What legislation did Democrats author and did Bush SIGN that caused harm to the economy?

 

[Bfgrn]

A bill that will allow people to go out and create jobs.

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, unemployment numbers were lower until the housing market happened. You can thank all the assholes in DC for that but you won't. You'll cheer on this current travesty.

The assholes in DC were private lenders and speculators?

 

[Rozman]

They sent a bunch to the Senate and Harry Reid uses them to wipe his ass after he takes a dump.

 

[bripat9643]

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, they worked great. 5% unemployment.

Then the Democrats happened in 2007.

Empty head = empty rhetoric

Really? What legislation did Democrats author and did Bush SIGN that caused harm to the economy?

Medicare Part D, for one.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, they worked great. 5% unemployment.

Then the Democrats happened in 2007.

Empty head = empty rhetoric

Really? What legislation did Democrats author and did Bush SIGN that caused harm to the economy?

Medicare Part D, for one.

You are either a lying sack of shit or obtuse...which one is it?

The Medicare Modernization Act was sponsored by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), and passed by Republicans NOT Democrats. It would have failed based on Democrat's votes.

H.R. 1 (108th): Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003

 

[rdean]

Like the Bush Tax cuts did. Look how well those worked.

Yes, they worked great. 5% unemployment.

Then the Democrats happened in 2007.

Empty head = empty rhetoric

Really? What legislation did Democrats author and did Bush SIGN that caused harm to the economy?

Good question. I would like to know that answer. I suspect the GOP answer would be to "take away your rights".

 

[Bfgrn]

Part D is not in fact an entitlement program; it really isn't even a benefit provided by the government. It's a program subsidized (and nominally run) by the government in which people buy prescription drug insurance policies provided by private companies.

Medicare's Poison Pill