Jobs Plan - Not Going Over So Good -

[Warrior102]

Obama Approval Plummets on Jobs Plan

A majority of Americans don’t believe President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan will help lower the unemployment rate, skepticism he must overcome as he presses Congress for action and positions himself for re- election.

The downbeat assessment of the American Jobs Act reflects a growing and broad sense of dissatisfaction with the president. Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy by 62 percent to 33 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted Sept. 9-12 shows. The disapproval number represents a nine point increase from six months ago.


Obama Approval Plummets on Jobs Plan - Bloomberg

 

[Oddball]

Prolly because anyone and everyone who isn't a brain dead zombie White House fluffer, can see that the "jobs plan" is just a warmed-over political payola succubus bill that failed the first time around.

 

[Warrior102]

Prolly because anyone and everyone who isn't a brain dead zombie White House fluffer, can see that the "jobs plan" is just a warmed-over political payola succubus bill that failed the first time around.

That's what one would think but fear not, there will be some Obamabots along here shortly telling us how fucked up the poll is, how great Obama's plan is, what his ass tastes like, etc.

 

[rdean]

Right wingers are doing everything they can to stop the needed rebuilding of America.

 

[Warrior102]

Right wingers are doing everything they can to stop the needed rebuilding of America.

What does this poll have to do with right wingers, dumbfuck.

Obama delivered a speech.
America lost confidence.
It happens every time he moves his lips.

OK - you can put your nose back on his ass again, sheep.

 

[signelect]

There is no jobs plan and people are starting to realize it. You can paint it a different color, print in on different paper, have the TelePrompTer writer write a new speech and at the end it is the same old crap he has been feeding us for 3 years. It doesn't work. He is flipping this country the finger and he will leave office very rich. Shame on us

 

[jillian]

Prolly because anyone and everyone who isn't a brain dead zombie White House fluffer, can see that the "jobs plan" is just a warmed-over political payola succubus bill that failed the first time around.

Not so much...most people are figuring out that radical right magical thinking doesn't work for job creation...

Washington (CNN) – President Obama’s disapproval ratings may be at an all-time high, but in a new CNN/ORC International poll, more Americans say they trust him on economic matters more than they do Republicans in Congress.

The survey released on Wednesday shows that although a lot of Americans are still unsure what’s in the president’s new jobs bill, they like most of the major proposals offered in the plan that was sent to Congress Monday.

“By a 43-35 percent margin, a plurality of Americans approve of the economic program Obama outlined in his speech to Congress last week, but more than one in five don’t have any view at all of the jobs bill,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

The president will travel to North Carolina Wednesday as he continues to try to sell his $447 billion dollar plan to encourage job growth to the public.

And most of the nation agree that stimulating employment is important right now.

Two-thirds believe that creating jobs should take precedence over the federal budget deficit and only 29 percent say reducing the deficit should be more important that reducing unemployment.

In the wake of recent natural disasters, Americans also prioritize disaster relief over the deficit. Six in 10 want federal aid to the victims of recent hurricanes and wildfires even if that amount of money is not cut from other government programs.

CNN Poll: More Americans trust Obama on economy over Republicans in Congress – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Oddball]

Lame-assed attempts at changing the subject can't change the fact that the (yet to be registered and introduced) bill is just a bunch of warmed-over political payola and blame-the-rich crapola, that has already failed or doesn't get any political traction.

And after that dog-and-pony show of a re-election campaign speech last week, the "they don't have a plan" gambit ain't gonna work either.

Little Lord Obammyroy has painted his ass into a corner on this one, and no amount of finger-pointing at republicans and media fluffery is going to get him out of it.

 

[Valerie]

Not sure if anyone has posted about this yet, but I heard there is a provision in there to create another protected class for the "unemployed" not to be discriminated against by employers. IOW if an employer chooses to not employ someone for the stated reason that they may be a bit rusty from their lack of recent employment, the "unemployed" can sue the employer for discriminating against them in their hiring practices.

 

[Valerie]

Which brings me to a little-noticed provision of Obama’s bill, a ban on discrimination against unemployed workers.

Um…isn’t that kind of nuts?

The Unemployed Aren’t Victims of Discrimination. They’re Victims of a Lousy Economy. | Swampland | TIME.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Of course it is having "issues".
I would be pretty pissed off if it didn't.
The President faaaar overreached his office by calling a joint session of Congress to engage in smoke and mirrors tactics and present a "bill" that is absolutely nothing different than what was done in 2009.

What Obama is really missing is one of those memory flash pens used in Men in Black....then and only then can anyone but the sheep fall for the same thing twice.

It's like the saying goes - "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice - shame on me".

 

[rdean]

Which brings me to a little-noticed provision of Obama’s bill, a ban on discrimination against unemployed workers.

Um…isn’t that kind of nuts?

The Unemployed Aren’t Victims of Discrimination. They’re Victims of a Lousy Economy. | Swampland | TIME.com

Read it again. The guy says he is a right wing extremist. In fact, he's not even clear what he is talking about.

I suspect that if Obama gives a credit for hiring someone unemployed, then you can't get the same credit for hiring someone who is already employed. Why? Because when their other job is filled, the credit has been paid twice. That would make it a scam.

There are millions of Americans who are unemployed. They are not ALL drug addicts and hobos. You wouldn't say ALL republicans are heartless bastards who don't care about Americans and call Christian values "socialism" and only care about rich people, can you? OK, maybe that was a bad example. At least I hope it's not "all".

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Which brings me to a little-noticed provision of Obama’s bill, a ban on discrimination against unemployed workers.

Um…isn’t that kind of nuts?

The Unemployed Aren’t Victims of Discrimination. They’re Victims of a Lousy Economy. | Swampland | TIME.com

This would be absolute bullshit.
As an employer - I strongly prefer to recruit - not hire.
Like it or not, when it comes time to downsize a company - managers keep the best people...period.
I want those people. After I get them - let the other company make the gamble in hiring off the street.

 

[Valerie]

Doesn't matter what source I post the info from when the info is factual. That was just one guy's take on the fact that such a provision does exist, which is the message I am trying to convey here so that other people realize...

The proposed legislation states that hiring discrimination against the jobless undermines the nation's economic stability, squanders human capital, increases demand for unemployment insurance, imposes burdens on publicly funded health and welfare programs and depresses the government's tax revenue. The bill would ban discriminatory language in job ads and also discrimination against the jobless itself. Affected workers could file claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The ban would nevertheless give employers tons of leeway to favor workers with relevant recent work experience. Language in the bill says it is not intended "to preclude an employer or employment agency from considering an individual's employment history or examining the reasons underlying an individual’s status as unemployed in assessing the individual's ability to perform the job or otherwise making employment decisions about the individual."

Practically speaking, it's also unlikely that eliminating overt anti-unemployed job ads would prevent businesses from quietly passing over the jobless, a practice that would be difficult to prove.

In August, HuffPost surveyed more than 30 businesses responsible for such ads. Of the ones that responded, most disavowed the discriminatory language, though several staffing firms insisted their clients only wanted employed recruits.


American Jobs Act Would Ban Discrimination Against Jobless

 

[Oddball]

And just how would one go about proving such discrimination?

Just like everything else about the Obammy regime, smoke & mirrors and form over substance.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not sure if anyone has posted about this yet, but I heard there is a provision in there to create another protected class for the "unemployed" not to be discriminated against by employers. IOW if an employer chooses to not employ someone for the stated reason that they may be a bit rusty from their lack of recent employment, the "unemployed" can sue the employer for discriminating against them in their hiring practices.

This is one more example of a "well intentioned" law that will end up doing the opposite of what it's proponents want it to.

Right now there is a bias against the long term unemployed. They are ALREADY seen in a negative light and that's totally unfair. The passage of a law such as this however will make the problem worse, and I'll explain why. To protect themselves from the potential law suits of applicants that might feel they have been discriminated against if they don't get the job, I guarantee you that companies will simply not call the long term unemployed in for an interview if they see on their resume that they have been out of work for a long time. They won't be telling them "no" on the job because employers will weed them out when a decision is made on who to bring in for interviews.

 

[Oldstyle]

I see the same problem with the proposed amendment to reward companies that hire the long term unemployed with a $4,000 tax credit. Sounds great, right? But if you were a business trying to decide whether to hire ten people "now" or waiting to hire them a month or two months from now...why would you hire them BEFORE you'd be eligible for that $4,000 bucks? Even if I'd made the call to hire people I'd probably delay that hiring a month or two simply so I could qualify for the tax credit. Those ten new people I'd be bringing on board would bring me $40,000 if I wait. I'd have to be an idiot to hire BEFORE that kicked in...which means somebody out there without a job and getting desperate has to wait before getting hired.

If the people writing this legislation had any clue at all how things work in the real world they would have made that law retroactive to anyone hiring from this point of time on.

 

[Oddball]

I see the same problem with the proposed amendment to reward companies that hire the long term unemployed with a $4,000 tax credit. Sounds great, right?

More smoke and mirrors, that further underscores the complete economic and business ignorance of the faculty lounge pinheads running Boiking's economic team.

Employers don't hire new troops to get a few alms from their parliamentary masters.