Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama Jobs Bill

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 23, 2011, 11:50 a.m. EST by ShaneSpaulmaster (36)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15398451

Obama wants to push through a jobs bill that includes a tax on the rich. It is being stymied in the Senate. I know we are not supposed to take political sides here, but shouldn't #OWS put a little more focus on this particular issue? The main problem in America right now is that nobody is working together for the best interest of all Americans.

If something positive is being rejected simply because of this delusive belief that the rich are the only ones capable of creating jobs, then a stand must be made. I am afraid that a staunch response by this movement will be the only way to dispel this seemingly idolized reliance on this "the free market knows best" delusion. To ignore any positive piece of legislation b/c it is associated with any party is tantamount to cutting our nose to spite our face.

I hope this message finds you well.

Good luck and God speed.

128 Comments

128 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

The bill is already done. Even his own party understands that it was nothing but a transparent political BS game that was never intended to pass. He just wanted something out there called the "American Jobs Act" so that he can say that the Republicans were against the "American Jobs Act" for campaign purposes.

Next up will be the "Don't Kill Grandma Act" and then the "Fluffy Bunnies and Cute Kittens Act." lol

You're right though. The main problem is that none of them work together for our best interests. Both are just as bad. Unfortunately, that's not likely to get any better going into an election year.

[-] 3 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it was "nothing but a transparent political BS game that was never intended to pass." Surely you know that it was something more than that: a commonsense way to grow the economy by an additional 1.5%-2%.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

The bill was not offered in a form that could pass. The specifics of various aspects in it are irrelevant since given the way that it was put together as a whole doomed it fom the start. And they knew that. They intentionally did so in order to provide a point for campaign purposes only.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

But you still haven't explained why one should believe this bill was designed "for campaign purposes only." As you acknowledge, the specifics of the bill would do a lot beyond the campaign issue, i.e. it would grow the economy by an additional 1.5%-2%.

If you want to oppose the bill, that's fine. But a reasonable opposition to the bill means having reasons to oppose the specifics of various aspects of it. It is not reasonable to oppose it for being a "political BS game" since it is certainly more than that. Indeed, the real "political BS game" is not proposing a commonsense way to grow the economy by an additional 1.5%-2%, but rather opposing it for campaign purposes only.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 8 years ago

One simple question SisterRay - if it was designed to pass, then why were the Democrats not able to muster enough votes in the Democratically controlled Senate to pass it? It is absolutely a political game, just as Frankie stated, to give Barry Soetoro campaign ammunition to use against those "mean Republicans who like to eat the heads off of babies".

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

When it is out of the Senate it goes to the house. At that point it is in the hands of the Republicans and Democrats need to have enough public support to force Republicans to vote for it because their constituency wants it.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

As you surely know, although the Democrats are in the majority in the Senate, it is not possible to advance a bill in the Senate without a supermajority of 60 votes. So it's actually quite easy to understand why the Democrats aren't able to muster enough votes to advance the bill in the Senate: there are only 51 Democrats in the Senate.

If the Republicans oppose the bill because of the specifics of various aspects of it, that's fine. But they ought not to oppose it for campaign purposes only (i.e. to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term president, as Sen. McConnell explains his primary goals as a senator).

It's just silly to say that the bill was designed "for campaign purposes only" as though it were equivalent to a ban on baby-eating or a non-binding bill in support of puppies and kittens if you're willing to concede that the bill makes substantial proposals that would benefit the economy, as the CBO confirms it does.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

No, actually I did explain it. You apparently just don't want to accept the practical reality of what this "bill" was and why it was done in the way that it was.

And as further evidence of that, despite all of the "pass this now... pass this now... pass this now... pass this now... pass this now..." talk, you see no real push to pass individual parts of it where there is agreement, of which there are quite a few. They could do a lot of it today. Done deal. Should have and could have been done long ago. Why not? Because nobody scores any political points from that.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

No, you did not explain it. Your claim is that the bill is designed for campaign purposes only. But you concede that the bill makes substantial proposals that would benefit the economy, as the CBO confirms it does. But these 2 claims contradict one another: if you accept that the latter is true, then you cannot also claim that the bill does nothing but serve Obama's campaigning purposes.

The Senate is currently taking the exact approach you recommend: breaking down the bill and trying to get it passed piecemeal. So far, all these attempts have proven unsuccessful. This should cast doubt on your claim that the problem was that the bill was bundled together and given a nice-sounding name.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

Because when you wrap everything together including areas of significant disagreement, then you ensure that it will not pass. Simple. Basically the same as putting a piece of candy in dog food and when you rejuect it then saying "See! She doesn't even like candy!" lol

The CBO bs isn't going to wash with me either. Sorry, I've been around longer than that and understand that game very well. CBO scores based on assumptions as presented only. There are significant and legitmate disagreements on various assumptions and approach. So, again, rather than setting those aside for the time being and moving forward with what can be done, they, like you, want to play the point to the CBO game.

The leadership in the Senate is not in fact trying to get anything done as far as I can tell with respect to areas of agreement where again things could be passed fairly easily. All that I've seen that they've tried to date is to push the most contentious aspects, continuing the same BS political game. Where's the vets employment part? Where's the payroll tax cut? Any compromise proposals? Nowhere to be found.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

How about giving some specifics. What specific points in the bill lead you to believe that it wasn't offered in good faith. Facts not someone's opinion.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

The "stimulus" aspects that they knew that they didn't have the votes to pass to begin with. When they broke those out to stand on their own the other day, they lost even more Democrats. That ain't happening in the form proposed and everyone knew that going in.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

Those aren't facts. Those are your opinion. Can you provide a source that was in the room when Democrats discussed doing this? Can you provide a written source for your opinions?

You can speculate what you think someone is thinking, but that isn't proof of anything. Just your idea. In this case probably given to you by an entertainer.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

Continuing from below since we apparently reached the end of the line...

I don't really care whether you think that I have any credibility or not. If you don't like hearing it from me then you can find plenty of others who have said the same including various Democrats, as is reflected in a NYT article from the time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-balking-at-obamas-jobs-bill.html

But if you want some facts, then here are some telling ones....

At the time that Obama gave his address to Congress on 9/8 (you'll recall after weeks of waiting for this plan which they'd announced earlier), while they'd picked the cool name "American Jobs Act" and he admonished Congress to "Pass this bill now," in fact there was no bill to pass even drafted. They'd not even coordinated with a house sponsor to offer one.

After waiting a full week, in order to make the point, Rep. Gohmert introduced his own bill (HR 2911) using the title "American Jobs Act."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2911

The best that they could manage was to submit "Executive Correspondence" outlining the proposal, and, at least as far as I know, there still is no actual bill reflecting Obama's "Jobs Act" in the House. The only thing that seems to exist is the bill that Reid sponsored in the Senate.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

The American Jobs Act that Obama is pushing IS the Harry Reid bill.

BTW - The actual bill was withheld until after the president’s speech. You announce something first and then produce what was announced. It’s not the other way around.

On September 8th a fact sheet was released of the bill http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act

September 8th was Thursday night and the bill was read into both the House and Senate the following week. September 12 the bill was sent to Congress. Since the bill has been introduced into the Senate it cannot be introduced to the House until it passes the Senate.

Here is a link explaining how the whole process works - http://thisnation.com/textbook/legislative.html

I suspect you have heard "Congressman X is drumming up support for his/her bill". That is what is happening now.

Rep. Gohmert did introduce his bill which is entitled, "American Jobs Act of 2011". The sole item on the bill is to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the corporate income tax. His proposal to create jobs is the not tax corporations. The same corporations that currently are sitting on billions of dollars of surplus but unwilling to create any new jobs. my SPECULATION is certain people in the Republican hierarchy were betting they could misinform people by saying “American Jobs Act of 2011 repeals the corporate income tax.” allowing Americans to assume it is Obama’s bill that is doing it. It’s an old tactic used by both parties.

As of September 14th 45% of Americans approved of the Obama bill with 23% unsure or unknown. - http://www.gallup.com/poll/149447/Americans-Favor-Obama-Jobs-Plan.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_term=All%20Gallup%20Headlines

Today when informed about what is actually in the bill 62% want it to pass. Since the die hard Republican base is 27% of the voting population, that makes sense. - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025618/-NBC-WSJ-poll:-Nearly-two-thirds-support-jobs-bill

Here is the American Jobs Act of 2011 that is sponsored by Harry Reid in its entirety in various formats - http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/flooraction/Jan2011/americanjobsact.pdf http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/text-american-jobs-act-and-obama-s-letter-to-congress-20110912

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

Yep, it's my opinion based on how it was done. Sorry, I didn't realize that I needed a taped confession from Joe Biden in order to support it. lol

Get real. If you'll look back you find even Democrats who said that it had no chance. You think that they're so politically naive that they expected the votes or anything else to change because they repackaged the same old stuff as an "American Jobs Act?" If so, then you're the one who's naive.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

To be credible you need facts not opinions.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

From what I understand about the Republican position, a more apt analogy would be that Obama's jobs bill is like putting a piece of candy in front of someone and saying that it costs $1, only to hear the offer rejected on the principle that spending any money on anything is immoral.

That predictions are based on assumptions is hardly a compelling indictment. If you don't like the CBO, look at what economists have concluded about the jobs bill. Consensus is that it would grow the economy as promised. But it seems like you don't really question that; it seems that you admit that this wasn't only about campaign purposes, but that it would also promote economic growth.

It would be great if there were areas of agreement here. Unfortunately, it's hard to understand what the Republicans will support except further cuts to the government's discretionary spending. There is stiff opposition to the payroll tax cut amongst Republicans: see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904103404576556963805854504.html . Obama has concluded that it is better to work on jobs for vets without the Republicans and is doing this by executive order: see http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/25/obama-jobs-veterans-idUSN1E79O12U20111025 . And it's hard to see what compromise proposals there could be when a jobs program (like everything else) costs money and when one party refuses to increase the debt and refuses to increases government revenue, thus ruling out the possibility of making any money available for the program.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

We can play dueling economists all day long. There is no "consensus" other than in the minds of whatever side you're on.

But none of that really matters since the political fact is that the bill in the form proposed was DOA and everyone knew that. As in the case of the "American Jobs Act" they just wrapped it in the flag of "teachers and firefighters" as unassailble groups for political purposes. No matter what you call it or who you target, it's not going to pass. Period. As above, when they broke out the stimulus part in the Senate, they lost even more Dems. So there's no point to Obama and Biden still going out and talking about it other than as a strawman. They know it, apparently you don't.

There's no need for Obama to go around Congress on the vets aspect. It's already been passed in the House. Murray has a bill in the Senate now but Reid's not let it come to the floor. Again, they just want to preserve it for political points.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

It indeed does seem that it's not going to pass. But that doesn't validate your claim that it was only proposed for campaign purposes -- a claim that you don't even seem to believe, given that you acknowledge that the bill would also promote economic growth. All this means is that Congress is once again unable to get important legislation passed.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

They knew going in exactly what support they had because none of the "stimulus" parts of it are anything new. Same old stuff repackaged as an "American Jobs Act." When you propose something that you know has a snowball's chance in hell of actually passing, then then it's hard to see how anyone can take it seriously and other than as a political move.

Yep. As I said above neither are prepared to work together for our best interests. Both are equally bad and, unforunately, it's just going to get worse as we get deeper into an election year.

[-] 1 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

Again, a modest, centrist proposal that would accomplish what it's promoted as doing -- in this case, growing the economy -- cannot be only a political move. You recognize this, but for some reason are being stubborn about it.

[-] 1 points by JonnyB (0) 8 years ago

We do need some type of a jolt. They say there might be a double dip recession coming? I believe try everything and hopefully something will help. I do not believe that "regulations" are the major problem. Big business is sitting on 2 trillion dollars they have made. There just isn't any demand. If we don't try something the economy will idle in slow motion with only slight improvement each month. There are a lot of people out there that just can't wait anymore.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

Yep, we do need something. But we need something effective and real, not political gamesmanship.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

Anther republican in house

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

Nope. I'm about as independent as can be. Which is why I don't like BS games like this from either side. Just wastes time, energy and money at a time when we need some effective action.

Although most here are too young to remember, there was a time not too long ago when despite party differences people would sit down and actually get something done. The us -vs-them crap has gotten to the point of just being ridiculous now.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 8 years ago

"The us -vs-them crap has gotten to the point of just being ridiculous now."

Hear hear!

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

A rose by any other name...

The naming is based on timing, but that doesn't mean it's complete fodder. There are parts that have merit and are worth discussion. I'm just concerned that not one Republican is willing to discuss the matter. We need to support open discussion, not only here, but in congress.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 8 years ago

They are prepared to do parts of it. Which is exactly what's happening now. They could have dispensed with the BS show up front when they knew full and well that it wasn't going to pass as a package. But, as typical, they'll sacrifice actual productive work that might help people in favor of trying to score political points. That shows where their priorities are. And again that applies on both sides.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Whenever a bill is broken up it pretty much means that the one party who stagnated the bill will change it to the point that it becomes counterproductive. It's sad, because it was sound as a whole. The fact that they tried to pass it as a package shows that any effort for progress will always be stifled not discussed. The fact that they are pushing it in pieces shows that at least someone is making an effort to make progress. This is why #OWS needs to make a stand, they need to know that we want them to work for the best interests of this country, not their political party. The Dems are discussing, the Repubs are stonewalling to failure for political reasons and nothing more, that why their stance follows straight down the line. This failing is what is best for their party.

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 8 years ago

It took democrats to kill the bill, they have control of the senate and could have pushed it through. Stop blaming republicans for your problems.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Republicans aren't debating the issue, Democrats are, so why should I stop blaming the Republicans when they clearly have no interest in discussing anything?

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 8 years ago

they are debating, the problem is people like you believe that a debate should be one sided, the side you agree with.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

They aren't debating for any other reason than to better their party's position. There is no debate if it is one sided, and the view that I agree with is that something needs to be done, something different. The conservative view of things work during certain situations, and the liberal view of things work in other situations. During a downturn like this, the conservative mindset is self destructive.

I have voted Republican, I have voted Democratic, and I have voted third party. When an entire party votes straight down the line in agreement, without one individual voting otherwise, while stating that they will never vote with Obama (publicly I might add), they are simply doing it because of the stance their party holds, nothing more. They have no interest in debating the issue, because the issue has been decided for them.

[-] 0 points by Rob (881) 8 years ago

So, the republicans voted on party lines=bad. Democrats vote on party lines=good (but why did 2 democrats cross?) Obama's ideas are crap, for the most part. He wants to "spend to prosperity". if that is how it woks i will just max out all my credit and then get more credit. some things he has done I agree with, primarily scaling back "no child left behind", but the health care plan is horrible, and the republicans did offer a counter proposal, but the democrats voted straight down the party line which resulted in a monstrosity that was pushed through on Christmas eve. then there is the 1 trillion spent on the previous "shovel ready" jobs bill provided almost nothing, but it did get an admission from Obama that "Maybe they were not as 'shovel ready' as I thought". Doing something to do something always results in something much worse. It is almost like saying "let's throw gas on that fire, at least it is doing something"

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I never said that Dems voting down party lines was good. You bring up a valid point, it just doesn't mean we should ignore what is going on now, or dismiss it entirely. Trust me, this bill isn't throwing gas on a fire, and just because the previous bill didn't accomplish as much as intended or in the way it was intended, doesn't mean it accomplished nothing.

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

Don't forget the Student Loan forgiveness hoax.

[-] 1 points by GBA (18) from Montclair, NJ 8 years ago

Well, where on earth r we going to get the $$$? 477 billion!!! China or Russia?

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I think China has already given us too much, so i guess Russia if those are the only choices you think we have.

[-] 1 points by VindicatedVigilante (176) from Fort Worth, TX 8 years ago

The only delusion here is believing the market is free.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I'll concede to that.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

So, a vote of "No Confidence" then? I mentioned it in another comment in this thread.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Wow...

Frankly, I hadn't thought of that and truth be told, I am horribly undereducated in the department of 'Motions of no confidence', lemme read up and get back to you (assuming I can locate this thread again).

Ow... Find me.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 8 years ago

No. Obama doesn't represent us. The jobs act is a watered down piece of garbage that further divides the people.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

The job bill, even on the high estimate of job creation, was still very slim.

[-] 1 points by lyn123 (123) 8 years ago

Is saving teacher, cop and firefighter jobs a "bail out" as Mitch Mcconnel declared?. The American Jobs Act has a lot of merit and supports Republican fundamentals. They should just vote it in and cut back in Afghanistan to pay for it. As and employer, I favored cutting payroll taxes for next year. Republicans are out of control and are mainly to blame for our national condition. Obama's hands are tied with the current congressional makeup. Many of his economic advisers leave the team because they aren't allowed to propose any new ideas because they will never earn support. Frustrating is just an understatement. Did you know that Obama wanted to end the "anti-trust exemption" for the health care industry early on in the Obama Care bill....of course it got watered down and this bill lost most if not all of its impact. I can't imagine any of the current Republican candidates winning the next election and I only hope that Obama just goes for it the next four years. He will not need to satisfy his special interests if he is not seeking re-election.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Agreed, well said.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 8 years ago

It's not the governments job to create jobs. Any job they create is just more theft from you. This stimulas will increase your costs even more. Look at how absurd inflation has been since Obama tried fixing shit. He robbed you! He stole food from your grandmothers mouth. I'll be dammed if he steals more of my money in an blatant attempt to BUY VOTES. Fuck the asshole and any of you fuckheads who support him!

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

The money has already been stolen under the false guise that it would trickle down to the middle and lower class, instead it's being invested in foreign banks. That's why the Republicans are arguing against tax increases for the rich, they think that less taxation will bring the money back into America. It won't, and if you can't make a point without cursing, you have no point to make. If Obama were buying votes, he would offer everyone a check in the mail and call it a tax rebate, that was done once, wasn't it? Worked real well, didn't it?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

will the jobs bill act open public access health care facilities

accessible to the general public like libraries?

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I like that idea, but no, no it would not.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Is the Jobs bill still open to amendments ?

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Amendments? No. Alterations in order to get it passed, yes. Although, the alterations will probably either kill it or make it largely ineffective.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

altering a bill amends it

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

When I think of Amending, I usually think of adding to bills that have already been passed into legislation. Altering the bill before it is passed into legislation, in my opinion, should be viewed differently.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

That is the language in congress

I'd like to amended such and such bill

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

"best interest of all Americans" are you kidding? That has NOTHING to do with politics. There was a court case one time when someone who works for politicians was being deposed. He was asked why his party voted a certain way since it had been agreed it was a good bill. He said our party wouldn't vote for it because we wouldn't get credit for the bill. Went reintroduce it we'll vote for it. That's the way it works.

It's all about who is going to get credit and it is exactly the same on both sides of the aisle. There is no good guy or bad guy there. There are just a bunch of clowns that we elected entertaining us with smoke and mirrors with each of them wanting star billing.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Exactly, I don't care who gets credit, as long as things get done. Right now, the repubs are not acting in anyone's best interest. Shouldn't this train of thought be addressed and changed as it occurs? Or we could do nothing and just let it fester, that usually ends well. We have a two party system with a great deal of money backing them both. We need to lobby our side to both parties, not with money, but with a show of solidarity. There is a right and there is a wrong.

Personally, if I didn't think it would harm our country irreparably, I would promote writing in a vote of "No Confidence" for the upcoming elections, perhaps if politicians saw that the vast majority of Americans had no confidence in them, they would all change their tune.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

A vote of no confidence may be the only way to go. There is always boycott and that is basically what a no confidence vote is. Another way though is a letter/e-mail writing campaign. They have to get elected and to do that they NEED our votes. If enough people get off their butts and call or write their elected representatives with the same specific demands and state they are going to vote for their opponent in the next election change will happen. Not voting for the incumbent is another way to be heard.

The more people who do the same thing the better chance there is of change.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Or placation. Again, it will be stalled until it becomes a campaign promise, which will never be kept. Until it is proven in the polls, politicians won't view it as an issue. A vote of no confidence will only work if both Republican and Democratic voters do it en masse. If we can get bi-partisanship amongst the voters, maybe we can push for a real change in government. Until then, we need to get the ball rolling in some direction that curtails the downward spiral we are in now.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

A vote of no confidence will only work if both Republican and Democratic voters do it en masse

Independents make up the majority.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Do you think it is possible? Do you think it could work? I would be impressed, and wouldn't mind dabbling in that idea. Break loose from choosing the better of two evils.

[-] 1 points by Shalimar (167) from Martinsville, IN 8 years ago

I think voting for someone who is not a Democrat or a Republican would send a very loud message that America no longer accepts business as usual from our politicians.

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

BAD BAD BAD. Government can't create jobs. Will we never learn. Watch and be informed or ignore and stay stupid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmD9TeUC54

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 8 years ago

It's nonsense that the government can't create jobs. It has done so for centuries, or do you define work for police and the military not a job. Don't civil servants perform a job?

The meme government can't create jobs is rubbish.

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

Government can't create jobs that produce wealth. All those jobs are paid for through taxes, no profits come form it. All those jobs though a lot are needed only take money away from the economy not put money into it. You can see those jobs what you can't see is the jobs they destroy.

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 8 years ago

Lots of jobs in the private sector don't create wealth either. Lawyer and accountants don't add value either. They produce nothing, neither do secretaries, receptionists and managers.

All these professions are however need to support the creation of wealth and the same is true for lots of government jobs (though the usefulness of some can be debated).

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

agreed

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I like Peter Schiff, started following him before the market crashed and he was going off on Ben Stein. But, even he has an agenda, and nobody is perfect 100% of the time. Being informed, and simply listening to one angle of a story and claiming you're informed aren't the same.

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

The point is that Keynesian economics leads to socialism and issues we have today, not so much that Peter Schiff is all knowing but we are following bad economics. Austrian school of economics work, Keynesian doesn't.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Peter Schiff did not believe in bailing out banks, he basically wanted Americans to take the hit all at once, let the banks fail. The alternative, bailing out the banks, only prolongs the hardships. Basically, he was for a sharp depression instead of a prolonged deep recession. Once the first Tarp passed, we were stuck with a prolonged recession or even deeper depression.

With regards to the differing views of economics, neither will work if the people analyzing the data are wrong or have an agenda. Keynesian does work, it's just that the people doing the analysis aren't always ethically motivated. Trust me, the empirical data pointed to a sharp decline in our economy long before it occurred. Hence the reason why some were able to predict it. The Austrian school of economics has great points, some have changed the evolution of our modern economic system. History repeats itself, and human beings are the weakest link in both of these chains of economic thought. The Austrian school of economics may mitigate or prevent bubbles, but it isn't going to prevent inequality due to greed.

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

I do see your point. Although I fear with Tarp and other bail outs and stimulus coming, the depression is going to be that much worse or we will end up with some type of global government or war with China. I can also see states at least trying to leave the union to get out from under the coming debt. On another thought, who mowed Mitt Romney's yard isn't something that should come up in a presidential debate with a looming global economic melt down on the horizon.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 8 years ago

I'm for a jobs bill; but not one that set-up to fail. It's way too small and would only raise taxes on the rich by 0.1%!! Is this being bold? Besides; he signed and congress just passed 3 "free trade" agreements - killing 173,000 American jobs!! Is this progress or is our throats being slit? I think there's an agenda; to keep that heavy boot placed firmly on the peoples' neck. The rest is PR BS.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/10/ED2E1LFOFN.DTL

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/13/1025884/-While-you-were-OWS,-WS-was-ODC

[-] 1 points by BillinNY (15) from New York, NY 8 years ago

The Occupy Wall St. movement should be in DC and primarily geared toward the Republican Congress, the people truly responsible for the destruction of America. Here is a history of economic disasters, intentionally and repeatedly caused by Republican Economic and Political Policies and Republican politicians who protect Wall St Execs and Corporate criminals.

1 - Recession of 2008 George W. Bush (R) Greatest downturn since 1929, blamed on lack of regulation of financial markets and collapse of credit markets.

2 - Recession of 2001 George W. Bush (R) Began in April of 2001, marked the beginning of greatest deficit spending in all of recorded human history.

3 - Recession of 1990-1991 George H.W. Bush (R) Deregulation of Savings and Loan industry.

4 - Recession of 1981-1982 Ronald Reagan (R) Massive deficit spending/deregulation of markets.

5 - Recession of 1973-1975 Richard M Nixon (R) OPEC's increase in oil prices and massive spending in the escalation of war in Vietnam led to stagflation, the second economic crash of Nixon's administration.

6 - Recession of 1969-1970 Richard M. Nixon (R) Credited to Nixon's escalation of and massive spending.

7 - Recession of 1960 -1961 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) Noted for high unemployment, low GDP, high inflation. JFK ended the recession by stimulating the economy 10 days after taking office.

8 - Recession of 1957-1958 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) Eisenhower achieved the dubious distinction of achieving a second economic downturn on his watch, a record later matched by Richard M. Nixon, and George W. Bush.

9 - Recession of 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) Increased outlays to National defense and restrictive credit policies blamed for this downturn.

10 - The Great Depression of 1929 Herbert Hoover (R) Lasted for 10 years- Blamed on Hoover's economic policy and lack of regulation of financial markets.

OCCUPY DC......

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

so you have the solution to avoid recessions. lets hear it.

[-] 1 points by BillinNY (15) from New York, NY 8 years ago

The facts are abundantly clear, Democrat's want to serve the people, Republicans want to destroy the people. The solutions are so simple, serve the people, that's it........

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

democrats want to make you dependent on them by giving you free stuff - pleeeaaasse ! that is a fact that is abundantly clear!

[-] 1 points by BillinNY (15) from New York, NY 8 years ago

This entire movement is about serving the people, that is it, period. Over 70 years republicans have slowly destroyed the fabric of this country with their sick and twisted ideologies. History, the facts are very clear. Here are the facts, Republican Economic and Political Policies have destroyed this country and anyone that supports Republicans and their policies are a participant in the destruction of America and the world. This crap has gone on far, far, far too long. Democrat's have put in place programs that have protected young and especially the elderly and Republicans are always trying to find a way to dissolve these very helpful programs that keep people alive. If Republicans got their way, many more of us would be dead. That's a FACT.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 8 years ago

The Glass-Steagal act was lifted by the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 - signed into law by one William Jefferson Clinton -- you know, that pesky deregulation that led to the greatest housing meltdown in the history of this country?

Bush started the massive spending and Obama tripled it.

Bush started 2 unconstitutional wars and Obama continued them AND authorized bombings in 3 other sovereign nations.

We could go on and on about who is worse (R) or (D), but it is fruitless until you can figure it out - THEY ARE ALL PART OF THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT. It makes no difference what the letter is behind their names - all of the problems and fixes you listed were perpetuated, aggravated, and resolved by people in the same establishment... Stop playing the party lines and realize that none of them are on your side.

[-] 1 points by BillinNY (15) from New York, NY 8 years ago

You're right, we can go on forever, but still, can not forget 10 Recessions under Republican Administrations, over 80 years of utter destruction, clearly Republicans are the most dangerous and destructive of the 3 parties.

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

Have you ever noticed that with the exception of GWB - all the big wars were started on a democratic presidents watch ? WWI - Wilson, WWII - Roosevelt, Korea - Truman, Vietnam - Kennedy.

[-] 1 points by BillinNY (15) from New York, NY 8 years ago

10 Recessions under Republican Administrations. 80 years of destruction. Creators and prime contributors to the 1%. Steal from the poor and give to the rich. slow and utter suffering and destruction of the 99%. This is what this fight is about, take back the percentage that belongs to the people, shut down the Racist Reich wing propaganda machine.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Policies must change with economic ups and downs. Policies that work in a time of prosperity will not work in a time of recession/depression and vice versa. Also, not every recession/depression are the same, so implementing spending cuts when our education system and infrastructure is already spread thin as it is, will not work. Trickle down economics is not working, clearly. So something new has to be done, and the politicians need to stop with the counterproductive campaign tactics, and actually do their job.

If I went to my job and contributed nothing, then stopped everyone else from accomplishing anything, I would get fired. Why should Republicans be allowed to unanimously block any work from being accomplished, without offering any compromise or valid alternatives?

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

so lots of rhetoric - what's your plan ? the alternative is to cut taxes & grow the economy. repeal Obamacare, repeal Dodd Frank. So Dodd Frank fixing the banking regs is like the Fox watching the hen house. Do you recall Barney Frank saying everything was fine with Fannie & Freddie. Do you recall him saying he wanted to "roll the dice" with loosening lending standards Pleeeaaase !!!

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Solutions to complex problems are brought about through discussion, we can complain about how complex the issue is and do nothing (actual rhetoric), or start taking steps to correct the problems (actual progress).

If politicians can't serve the people they are sworn to represent, and put political grand standing aside to reach a consensus, we're screwed. That is the plan, that is the answer. How is it that working together on a problem that effects us all is even a issue?

P.S. cutting taxes isn't going to grow the economy, repealing Obamacare is ridiculously shortsighted, and banking regulations haven't really been enforced. The SEC was clearly just "giving their opinion" when they gave out their ratings. I wasn't that vague in my original post, did you even read the BBC article?

[-] 0 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

still - no policy suggestions lol!

[-] 0 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

Anther republican in the house

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Woo hoo, now we have a party! Welcome :-)

[-] 0 points by GeorgeMichaelBluth (402) from Arlington, VA 8 years ago

Any increase in tax on anyone is a negative. How hard is that concept to understand? More tax is not the solution and will only transfer more wealth quicker to the 1%. If I could pass any law it would be that before posting in this forum, you actually had to understand economics.....

[-] 2 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I concur with your last sentence.

[-] 0 points by SisterRay (554) 8 years ago

It's not hard to understand the words, but it is hard to understand the sense of your statement. How would a 5% tax on income over $1,000,000 "transfer more wealth quicker to the 1%"?

[-] 0 points by Markmad (323) 8 years ago

There is no money! The government is broke. Stop demanding unless your god does intervene?

[-] 3 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Yes, there is plenty of money, the wealthy holds the majority of it in America but do not want to give anything back into the system they used to become wealthy in the first place. Hence the reason for taxing the wealthy to achieve the payment of the bill.

Good luck and God speed.

[-] 2 points by Markmad (323) 8 years ago

Neither the rich nor the free market are responsible for the economy but government. A capitalist government that refuses to be in business and does not own any industry has no sources of income and therefore unable to lead us to prosperity. Let us nationalize our industries because money talks and BS walks. The only way out is to nationalize now.

[-] 2 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

You just stated that we should Nationalize our industry right after stating that we own no industry. Technically, if you really think about it, our industry is already nationalized, government subsidies and all.

Still, you peaked my curiosity, which industry and how would this work on a grand scale?

I'm of the mindset that the pendulum must swing, from capitalism to communism without ever delving too far into either end. Both are good on paper, but not so good in reality or for any prolonged period of time, which is why the pendulum must swing. Right now the pendulum has slowed to a crawl.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Ok, good on paper. This is assuming that the money going into the Treasury would be spent for the benefit of the people, which seems like a stretch of the imagination to me, all things considered. Even with regulation.

People will argue against or for bigger government, Republicans seem to only want bigger government when the "free market" system needs to be rescued, but when it comes to anyone else receiving any form of help from the government they say that the "government" is too big, needs to shrink, and spending needs to be cut. Which is simply compounding the problem. The education system is in danger of becoming subsidized by corporations (Rupert Murdoch).

There are certain sectors in which the government should not be an overpowering presence, but a regulatory agency, and there are certain sectors in which the "free market" system would be absolutely devastating. Meanwhile the people on Capitol Hill are pissing into the wind.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I believe he defines "rich" as a family making $250K per year. I can assure you that while that is a comfortable income, it does not make someone "rich".

[-] 2 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

So, we should wait until $250K per year becomes middle income range and then address the problem? My family makes under $90K per year, and I feel that I am living comfortably, perhaps your views are skewed slightly.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

All I am saying is that $250K is much more middle class than it is rich. You most likely would not be able to tell the difference between families making say $100K per year and those making $250K by looking at their lifestyles.

I think these plans would get a lot more support if they actually taxed the rich, not the upper middle class. You have to remember too that people of upper incomes are usually able to pass on tax increases to those below them.

[-] 2 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

Yes, $250K is much more middle class than rich, that is a problem considering the majority of American families don't even come close to making that. Soon, that upper middle class will be middle class, that is going to be a serious problem.

Your argument is the best I've seen yet, I have to concede to the fact that the people in upper incomes will pass the tax onto the others below them. However, if we do not make any effort to change the situation, there is no possibility of ever achieving anything positive. The direction we are currently headed is not favorable for anyone.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

I think closing tax loopholes is the best way. That tax code is extraordinarily complex and even though members of Congress who make it may be smart (we hope at least), there are plenty of accountants out there who are much smarter than them. So what you end up with is this very complex system in which those who write the code don't know it as well as those who take advantage of its complexity.

I am not advocating a 9-9-9 plan but I don't think it is unreasonable to have a tax code that can be printed on two (or one) sheets of paper. Maybe 3 tax brackets (poor, middle, rich) with 1 rate for each that applies to all types of income and have very minimal deductions.

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

I see where you are coming from, but measuring the complexity of the tax code by the number of pages it's written on isn't really possible. I mean, the 9-9-9 plan sounds ridiculously simple, until you start to think about how to implement it, then it becomes extremely complicated. You have areas of possible double taxation (people who had money in savings that has already been taxed buying something new and getting taxed again, federally), you have Americans living below the poverty line that you have to consider, international trade... etc

I know you aren't advocating 9-9-9, but simplicity isn't always better. Your last comment is interesting though.