Republicans set to just say no to jobs bill

[California Girl]

Yada yada yada ... the jobs were promised over a year ago. Now we need Federal legislation to invent jobs so we can get some lipstick on that pig, huh?

Now Gunny, you should know there's a difference. Those were 'stimulus' jobs. These are just jobs. Honestly, I thought that would be clear to..... to....... to...... mmmmm. Yea, I see your point.



Oh wait, I got.... The 'stimulus' jobs were to expand the public sector and drag us deeper into the abyss of debt. Now we can throw a few bucks at the private sector so they can hire a few low paid workers. Damn, those dudes in DC are real smart. That'll save the economy..... not.

It's obviously not clear to you either. Why am I not surprised. Do you people EVER actually READ anything containing a few factoids and not just negative bulltoids?

I think our problem is that we don't get our 'facts' from the MSM or the Government.... because neither are exactly legitimate sources for unbiased information.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sheesh, spending money to help small businesses here? What a stupid idea.

A Real Republican realizes that what is best for this nation is to start wars on the basis of lies, give money to businesses in which the major Republican leaders have a big stake in to make billions off of that war, and then for those businesses to move to Dubai.

 

[MaggieMae]

Republicans set to just say no to jobs bill

Of course Republicans say no to jobs bill. They don't want to work. Would you if you looked like this:

Could you please provide evidence that the so called jobs bill actually creates jobs? Can you provide evidence where the person in the picture you posted doesnt have a job or has something to be ashamed of because you dont like what he looks like?

Could you provide evidence that you have any connection with reality?

Actually, I was watching Morning Joe this morning and he and his guests all said this bill was basically 15 billion in TAX CUTS to small business. He said that Republicans are making a big mistake not supporting such a bill. He said if the Democrats wanted to make it really hard for Republicans, they could submit such a bill every month and if the Republicans voted against every single one, it would destroy any chances for winning upcoming elections.

Joe Scarborough is hardly a liberal.

He's one of the sane ones who realizes that all the obnoxious negativity eventually will come back to bite them in their proverbial asses, and they will NOT win enough seats to make a dent in the Democratic majority. I wish Scarborough would run again, but I think he's taken up residence in New York and nothing's open until 2012.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Gunny, you should know there's a difference. Those were 'stimulus' jobs. These are just jobs. Honestly, I thought that would be clear to..... to....... to...... mmmmm. Yea, I see your point.



Oh wait, I got.... The 'stimulus' jobs were to expand the public sector and drag us deeper into the abyss of debt. Now we can throw a few bucks at the private sector so they can hire a few low paid workers. Damn, those dudes in DC are real smart. That'll save the economy..... not.

It's obviously not clear to you either. Why am I not surprised. Do you people EVER actually READ anything containing a few factoids and not just negative bulltoids?

I think our problem is that we don't get our 'facts' from the MSM or the Government.... because neither are exactly legitimate sources for unbiased information.

But of course a drugged out radio jock and a ceritifiebly insane talking head on Faux is?

 

[Foxfyre]

Because it's not all about helping small business. In fact, it's not even a teensey-weensey bit about helping small business.

It's all about bailing out state bureaucracies that can't control their own spending.

Didn't bother to actually READ it, I see. Do you need help? Shall I just copy the text here?

The general details have been floating around for quite some time.

Most of the money goes to prop up spending on state bureaucracies and other "infrastructure" (read: pork) projects.

The silly, cynical and puny tax credit for new hires is outright laughable.

But this is typical of legislation coming out of Washington these days. The mainstream media, still mostly lapdogs to the current administration, dutifully report what the President or Congressional leadership says the bill is all about, and the diehard disciples dutifully swallow the sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.

In truth however, they dangle a great looking carrot in front of the gullible's nose so that they will ignore the bulk of the bill which, as you say, is a whole lot of money directed to a favored few but which will swell the deficit and debt without benefitting the economy in any significant way.

What kind of idiot thinks it is effective and solves unemployment issues in any sustainable way to pay an employer to hire somebody? If the employer needed the employee and could afford to hire him, he wouldn't need to be bribed in order to do that. It is a sure bet that the cost to bribe him will cost a whole lot more than whatever short term unemployment monies are saved, and, unless the employer continues to need him, the worker will be right back on the unemployment roles anyway. It would be much more cost effective to simply extend unemployment benefits.

If they were serious about real solutions, they would be making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the foreseeable future, would be eliminating all unnecessary regulation, and would be scaling back as much government spending as possible to free up credit for the private sector.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yada yada yada ... the jobs were promised over a year ago. Now we need Federal legislation to invent jobs so we can get some lipstick on that pig, huh?

This one does not create jobs; it gives tax incentives for existing businesses to better enable them to start hiring. A no-*******-brainer.

The last one wasn't exactly a storming success in the 'creating jobs' box. I find myself questioning who exactly has this 'no-*******-brain'.

You can stick to your negative reports 'till pigs fly. I'll stick to just the facts, ma'am.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010
washingtonpost.com

You want full employment in one year? Dream on...

 

[MaggieMae]

They aren't borrowing more money. Some of it will come from TARP funds and some of the transportation incentives from stimulus funds designated for transportation.

Which is just further proof that all the spending so far has pretty much established "slush funds".

Which is not a bad thing, imo. You call it "slush" and I call it "insurance" against further losses.

 

[MaggieMae]

You have the most apropos avatar of anyone here, little kitty.

Thank you. I see you're all through playing and now simply into personal criticisms. Nice. So very typical of you.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now Gunny, you should know there's a difference. Those were 'stimulus' jobs. These are just jobs. Honestly, I thought that would be clear to..... to....... to...... mmmmm. Yea, I see your point.



Oh wait, I got.... The 'stimulus' jobs were to expand the public sector and drag us deeper into the abyss of debt. Now we can throw a few bucks at the private sector so they can hire a few low paid workers. Damn, those dudes in DC are real smart. That'll save the economy..... not.

It's obviously not clear to you either. Why am I not surprised. Do you people EVER actually READ anything containing a few factoids and not just negative bulltoids?

I think our problem is that we don't get our 'facts' from the MSM or the Government.... because neither are exactly legitimate sources for unbiased information.

So who is? God? You've got to rely on something, and the original source is usually the best. The CBO is not biased and neither is the GAO. Yet when it comes to evaluating anything the Democrats have done, their reports are dismissed as by you people as biased lies, and so you go to all your own biased news outlets to confirm your incorrect opinions.

And THAT'S how it works.

 

[MaggieMae]

Didn't bother to actually READ it, I see. Do you need help? Shall I just copy the text here?

The general details have been floating around for quite some time.

Most of the money goes to prop up spending on state bureaucracies and other "infrastructure" (read: pork) projects.

The silly, cynical and puny tax credit for new hires is outright laughable.

But this is typical of legislation coming out of Washington these days. The mainstream media, still mostly lapdogs to the current administration, dutifully report what the President or Congressional leadership says the bill is all about, and the diehard disciples dutifully swallow the sales pitch hook, line, and sinker.

In truth however, they dangle a great looking carrot in front of the gullible's nose so that they will ignore the bulk of the bill which, as you say, is a whole lot of money directed to a favored few but which will swell the deficit and debt without benefitting the economy in any significant way.

What kind of idiot thinks it is effective and solves unemployment issues in any sustainable way to pay an employer to hire somebody? If the employer needed the employee and could afford to hire him, he wouldn't need to be bribed in order to do that. It is a sure bet that the cost to bribe him will cost a whole lot more than whatever short term unemployment monies are saved, and, unless the employer continues to need him, the worker will be right back on the unemployment roles anyway. It would be much more cost effective to simply extend unemployment benefits.

If they were serious about real solutions, they would be making the Bush tax cuts permanent for the foreseeable future, would be eliminating all unnecessary regulation, and would be scaling back as much government spending as possible to free up credit for the private sector.

Another one who never ventures beyond her Rule Book for Right Wing Ideology. If taxes are cut to the extent you people would wish, um, zero? the treasury would be depleted even more and the deficit even greater.

 

[del]

It's obviously not clear to you either. Why am I not surprised. Do you people EVER actually READ anything containing a few factoids and not just negative bulltoids?

I think our problem is that we don't get our 'facts' from the MSM or the Government.... because neither are exactly legitimate sources for unbiased information.

So who is? God? You've got to rely on something, and the original source is usually the best. The CBO is not biased and neither is the GAO. Yet when it comes to evaluating anything the Democrats have done, their reports are dismissed as by you people as biased lies, and so you go to all your own biased news outlets to confirm your incorrect opinions.

And THAT'S how it works.

the CBO itself isn't biased, but it can only evaluate costs based on what is submitted to it for evaluation. it can't question or change any assumptions whether or not they are flawed. so if the proposal/bill under study assumes that X number of dollars will be saved, the CBO HAS to accept that as a fact.

this troubles me.

obligatory on topic reference- i voted for scott brown and i have no problem with him voting for this-he said he'd vote on bills based on their merits, in addition to promising to be the *41st* vote. so far, IMO, that's what he's doing.

 

[MaggieMae]

A bipartisan revamp of the IRS is now being proposed by Senators Wyden and Gregg, which I hope will gain steam, but I'm not optimistic because of all the special interest lobbying that will immediately begin if a bill ever reaches the floor. Since conservatives are making the most noise over taxes, I urge all of you to enlighten yourselves on this plan and try, for once, to cease jumping to immediate conclusions that just because it's bipartisan means it's a secret plot by the Democrats (which is where you usually go).

Wyden, Gregg push tax reform
By: Meredith Shiner
February 23, 2010 12:13 PM EST

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) have introduced the first comprehensive bipartisan tax reform bill since the Reagan era, touting a major overhaul of the tax code.

But the introduction of the bill – and the press conference touting the effort – may be the high water mark for the legislation, since it will be extremely difficult to find floor time for an incredibly complex issue in an election year. The legislation seeks to overhaul and streamline the 10,000 exemptions, deductions and credits.

While Wyden said he had been in close communication with the White House and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on the issue, the senator from Oregon conceded that only the staff of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had been briefed in the process to date.

Still, Wyden and Gregg remain optimistic that by pegging the sweeping tax reform to job creation in a bipartisan way, they can push it through the upper chamber.

"If the only things that are certain are death and taxes, at least taxes ought to be understandable, they ought to be fair, they pro-growth, they ought to create jobs and that's what we've tried to pull together here — a tax bill that is bipartisan," Gregg said. "It took us a couple years to get here. There was a lot of give and take. I'm not happy with everything. Ron's not happy with everything. But it's a classic example of a bipartisan effort to address a fundamental issue."

"Most importantly, at this key time, this is a jobs bill. This is about putting a premium on job creation. You do that by targeting tax breaks that help small businesses grow," Wyden added.

They explain it here (appearing on Morning Joe and several other programs today):

Morning Joe

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I guess they weren't kidding when they said they were going to spend their way out of this economic mess. Another $15 Billion to "create" jobs? What happened to the $850 Billion "Stimulus?" Man we're in trouble. These Socialists have completely sunk many future generations to come. It really is very sad.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think our problem is that we don't get our 'facts' from the MSM or the Government.... because neither are exactly legitimate sources for unbiased information.

So who is? God? You've got to rely on something, and the original source is usually the best. The CBO is not biased and neither is the GAO. Yet when it comes to evaluating anything the Democrats have done, their reports are dismissed as by you people as biased lies, and so you go to all your own biased news outlets to confirm your incorrect opinions.

And THAT'S how it works.

the CBO itself isn't biased, but it can only evaluate costs based on what is submitted to it for evaluation. it can't question or change any assumptions whether or not they are flawed. so if the proposal/bill under study assumes that X number of dollars will be saved, the CBO HAS to accept that as a fact.

this troubles me.

obligatory on topic reference- i voted for scott brown and i have no problem with him voting for this-he said he'd vote on bills based on their merits, in addition to promising to be the *41st* vote. so far, IMO, that's what he's doing.

That's not how the CBO arrives at its analyses at all. (Of course the CBO doesn't write policy; it is simply evaluating what someone else has written, and it most definitely can find and report flaws.) CBO is required to develop a cost estimate for virtually every bill reported by Congressional committees to show how it would effect spending or revenues over the next five years or more. It uses a variety of entities to gather numbers, including OMB, Senate Finance Committee, Committee on Ways and Means, Office of Tax Policy (Treasury) and Statistics of Income (IRS). For most tax legislation, CBO uses estimates provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a separate Congressional analytical group that works closely with the two tax-writing committees. So CBO doesn't just take the number provided in a bill and attempt to reach that same conclusion based on fudging the math.

 

[MaggieMae]

I guess they weren't kidding when they said they were going to spend their way out of this economic mess. Another $15 Billion to "create" jobs? What happened to the $850 Billion "Stimulus?" Man we're in trouble. These Socialists have completely sunk many future generations to come. It really is very sad.

How many broken records will this thread contain?

 

[Misty]

why do we need this, why not use the 600 billion or so left in the stimulus? this is stupid, the fact we need it shows the first stimulus failed.

Some of it extends tax provisions in the stimulus. Most of it concerns tax breaks, not projects. All the righties have been screeching about lowering and/or tax breaks for small businesses, well here ya go. And you still screech.

The tax cuts are smoke and mirrors.

Businesses can't hire people if they aren't selling enough to make payroll

Getting a tax cut for hiring someone does not help if you can't afford to hire anyone.

It's another fake fix.

 

[Foxfyre]

why do we need this, why not use the 600 billion or so left in the stimulus? this is stupid, the fact we need it shows the first stimulus failed.

Some of it extends tax provisions in the stimulus. Most of it concerns tax breaks, not projects. All the righties have been screeching about lowering and/or tax breaks for small businesses, well here ya go. And you still screech.

The tax cuts are smoke and mirrors.

Businesses can't hire people if they aren't selling enough to make payroll

Getting a tax cut for hiring someone does not help if you can't afford to hire anyone.

It's another fake fix.

Not only that, but the so called tax relief is only available to small businesses making under $250,000 a year. How many small businesses making $250,000 a year are much more than Mom and Pop and maybe one employee or the kids working part time?

Unless you give tax relief to businesses that are actually in a position to expand and hire--and yes, that might include some 'rich' folks--no jobs bill is going to accomplish much of anything. But hey it's government spending and the deficit/national debt be damned. If the government is doing it, it must be wonderful. How dare we object to or criticize it.

 

[ihopehefails]

The proposed bill which won the cloture vote yesterday, is all about helping small businesses. Why are Republicans already against it, with the exception of five brave ones?

S.A. 3310, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act

I'll play this game.

I'll take "Is it because he is black" for a hundred

 

[LibocalypseNow]

No one should vote for more wasteful spending. Socialism only begets more Socialism. Our Government is completely out of control. Glenn Beck did have it right when he said that the Socialists/Progressives have infested both parties at this point. I don't always agree with Beck but i do on that one. No true Conservative could vote Yea on yet more incredibly irresponsible wasteful spending. Are there any true Conservatives left? Hmm?

 

[ihopehefails]

A bipartisan revamp of the IRS is now being proposed by Senators Wyden and Gregg, which I hope will gain steam, but I'm not optimistic because of all the special interest lobbying that will immediately begin if a bill ever reaches the floor. Since conservatives are making the most noise over taxes, I urge all of you to enlighten yourselves on this plan and try, for once, to cease jumping to immediate conclusions that just because it's bipartisan means it's a secret plot by the Democrats (which is where you usually go).

Wyden, Gregg push tax reform
By: Meredith Shiner
February 23, 2010 12:13 PM EST

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) have introduced the first comprehensive bipartisan tax reform bill since the Reagan era, touting a major overhaul of the tax code.

But the introduction of the bill – and the press conference touting the effort – may be the high water mark for the legislation, since it will be extremely difficult to find floor time for an incredibly complex issue in an election year. The legislation seeks to overhaul and streamline the 10,000 exemptions, deductions and credits.

While Wyden said he had been in close communication with the White House and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on the issue, the senator from Oregon conceded that only the staff of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had been briefed in the process to date.

Still, Wyden and Gregg remain optimistic that by pegging the sweeping tax reform to job creation in a bipartisan way, they can push it through the upper chamber.

"If the only things that are certain are death and taxes, at least taxes ought to be understandable, they ought to be fair, they pro-growth, they ought to create jobs and that's what we've tried to pull together here — a tax bill that is bipartisan," Gregg said. "It took us a couple years to get here. There was a lot of give and take. I'm not happy with everything. Ron's not happy with everything. But it's a classic example of a bipartisan effort to address a fundamental issue."

"Most importantly, at this key time, this is a jobs bill. This is about putting a premium on job creation. You do that by targeting tax breaks that help small businesses grow," Wyden added.

They explain it here (appearing on Morning Joe and several other programs today):

Morning Joe

We go there because it usually is the truth with politicians. Tax reform sounds good like we are improving it but what it usually means tax increases. Its like every other slogan modern politicians come up with to cloak their real intentions such as "war on terror" or Janet's threat of radical extremism (aka Tparty people. I can't believe we live in a country where political views are being hunted down by the government). They are all slogans that are puposely vague so that people will plug their own meaning into them and allows politicians to do what they want with the full support of the people who have been tricked.