Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Romney or Obama? Not much of a choice ...

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 15, 2012, 4:38 p.m. EST by karenpoore (902)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am curious who plans to vote or not vote? Same ole, same ole ... bullshit!

64 Comments

64 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 10 points by kareb (51) 2 years ago

I will probably vote for Obama. I refuse to vote for a GOP candidate. They have never said what their jobs plan is! They don't even pretend to have one.

GOP jobs plan - Less taxes for the 1%, less regulation for the 1% sending more jobs overseas, censoring the net, human corporations, Tell OWS to get a non-existent job

Their plan seems to be protect the rich while pretending to protect the morals and family values of the common (broke) worker

[-] 9 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

the GOP's PLAN is to offshore as many jobs as possible

[-] 4 points by kareb (51) 2 years ago

Yeah I know. And they are kicking some ass at getting rid of the jobs!

I know offshoring is supposed to help create jobs somehow (the righties defend it like they would a child) but I can't seem to find anybody that has a believable story that explains how sending our jobs away creates more jobs here.

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Not much different than the Dems plan. Clinton signed NAFTA ...

Neither party gives a shit about citizens, all they want is more corporate money.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 2 years ago

I agree 100%

[-] 2 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

It is not the proper purpose of government to provide jobs for its citizens. It is not the proper purpose of government to do anything except to ensure that its citizens' rights are protected. Their ability to provide for themselves will flow from there. I'll not be voting for any candidate that does not hold this idea as a core value.

[-] -1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

"probably"? hahaha! Thats a laugh - of course you will vote for Obama!
So tell me how taxing the 1% more creates jobs? What's the difference between the government confiscating 1% money & investing it, or the 1% investing it directly? I'l tell you the difference, govt a) is not as careful with other peoples money as it would be with their own - hense situations like Solyndra - ideologically driven investments lead to waste.

But go ahead - vote for more of the same for spite.

[+] -6 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

get rid of the staggering govt regulations that are anti business. govt is not supposed to create jobs, jobs come from a healthy economy when people are willinng to take risks and start a business. this mantra of "protecting" the rich is just that, a mantra.

[-] 3 points by kareb (51) 2 years ago

Tell me about those staggering anti-business regulations you chant about. I was in business for myself for a while and I never saw those "staggering anti-business regulations"

“Government is not supposed to create jobs”. Where did you get that?

What do you think has been going on since 1776? What do you think tariffs and government subsidization are all about? America didn’t get strong without government intervention.

If our government does not create an environment of fairness and competiveness against the world markets what do you think will happen to America

Currently members of our government are doing just the opposite. They are helping to stack the deck against American citizens by giving tax breaks for shipping our jobs overseas and giving corporations powerful tools to manipulate our elections

The worst part is they have convinced half the population that all our problems can be solved by less regulation a more tax breaks for the corporations that represent the world and not America

[+] -5 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the epa creates laws and call them "regulations" The job of the govt is to protect its citizens , provide security and defense.

[-] 4 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Never had any student loans obviously.

We are currently experiencing your philosophy that has been in force for 30+ years. I'd tell you to go to hell, but your ignorance and stupidity have brought our American Dream to this. Congratulations, and welcome to your country.

I hope there's still enough left when you're done.

Your mind is the worst humanity has offered.

[+] -11 points by believeingod (-72) 2 years ago

Side by Side The House Republican Plan compared to the President's House Republicans' first priority is to pass job-creating legislation. As of January 16, the House has approved 27 bipartisan jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Regulations The Obama administration has publicly listed a total of 219 new regulatory actions under consideration for the upcoming year, each of which would have an estimated cost to our economy of $100 million or more. The President's Plan The President has ordered a review of all government regulations. In his address to Congress, he stated that they "identified over 500 reforms, which will save billions of dollars over the next few years." House Republicans' Plan House Republicans are supportive of President Obama's intent to review Federal regulations. Our regulatory relief agenda includes repeal of specific regulations, stopping rules like Cement MACT, expediting the permitting process for construction projects, and making structural reforms to the rule-making system. The House has approved more than 27 pro-growth measures to address the jobs crisis and we urge the Senate to approve these measures. Payroll Tax Holiday In the past, the Obama administration said that the payroll tax was "a one-year, temporary tax break intended to help working families in these tough economic times and to help generate growth and jobs. After the temporary provision expires, payroll tax rates will return to what they were before." When the payroll tax reduction was first enacted in December 2010, the unemployment rate stood at 9.4%. Today, more than 13 million Americans are still unemployed. The President's Plan Cuts payroll taxes by 50% next year. House Republicans' Plan In addition to keeping payroll taxes low for another year, House Republicans are focusing on reforming the tax code to make it easier to create jobs while making it fairer, flatter, and simpler for all workers. Unemployment Insurance For 34 consecutive months the unemployment rate has been at or above 8% — the level the president said unemployment would never reach if the "stimulus" was approved. Prior to the enactment of the "stimulus," unemployment had not been above 8% for two and a half years consecutively since the Great Depression. The President's Plan Extends Unemployment Insurance for another year. House Republicans' Plan House Republicans want to ensure that those who truly need unemployment insurance can rely upon it but also reform the program to ensure it focuses on helping get people back to work – like instituting basic work requirements, allowing states to test innovative state-based solutions, and permitting states to perform drug screening and testing to improve prospects for future employment. We are also ensuring that our children and grandchildren are not paying for today’s job crisis by adding to the deficit. Stimulus Infastructure Spending Stimulus Spending has failed. In 2009, the Obama administration promised that unemployment would not go above 8% if the $1 trillion "stimulus" became law, but unemployment has averaged 9.4%. In May 2011, a new study was released by economists from Ohio State that said the actual impact of the $1.2 trillion "stimulus" was a net job loss of 550,000. The President's Plan Proposes the infastructure improvement of 35,000 schools, the rehabilitiation of homes and businesses in locations with a high rate of foreclosure, and the creation of thousands of transportation projects nationwide. House Republicans' Plan House Republicans want to use infrastructure funds more effectively to support economic growth without borrowing more money. This can be done simply by removing artificial funding barriers which set aside 10% of state infrastructure funds for items such as transportation museums and the acquisition of scenic easements. This would allow states to devote more funding to the types of infrastructure the president has advocated and that House Republicans support, without requiring new spending. Infastructure Bank In 2009, the Democrat majority first proposed the development of a federal Infrastructure Bank, a wholly owned government corporation controlled by a five-member board of directors with the ability to issue bonds and to use the proceeds to provide loans and loan guarantees for state and local construction. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, most infrastructure bank proposals would exposes taxpayers to the risk of default. The President's Plan Sets up an independent fund to attract investments and issue loans based on two criteria: project need and economic benefit. House Republicans' Plan House Republicans want to use infrastructure funds more effectively to support economic growth without borrowing more money or creating additional bureacracy. As stated above, this can be done simply by removing artificial funding barriers which set aside 10% of state infrastructure funds for items such as transportation museums and the acquisition of scenic easements. This allows states to devote more funding to the types of infrastructure that would be provided through the president's proposal while preventing additional spending and shielding taxpayers from risky investments. Tax Credit for Hiring the Unemployed In March 2010 Congress passed the HIRE Act (H.R. 2847), which suspended employers’ requirement to pay payroll taxes for certain new employees and provided a tax credit of $1,000 to an employer if they retained an employee for 52 weeks. Once again, the temporary tax credit program failed to make a significant and sustained dent in unemployment, which was 9.7% the month before the bill was passed and averaged 9.6% since then. The President's Plan Provides companies a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. House Republicans' Plan The House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators includes truly pro-growth, long-term tax reform to provide American job creators with the certainty that they need to hire and expand, rather than a short-term tax subsidy for temporary hiring. House Republicans put fundamental tax reform in our budget to make the tax code fairer, flatter, simpler and more competitive to create jobs, and it’s our hope that the president would support that effort. Stimulus Education Spending The original stimulus included $53.6 billion for the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund," which was generally used to subsidize states' public education costs and supplement state budgets, rather than hire a substantial number of new employees. In a number of areas, cash-strapped state and local governments used the money to give employees raises instead. The President's Plan "Thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work." House Republicans' Plan House Republicans agree with the 222 economists from across the country who stated in December 2009 that "The 2009 near-term 'stimulus' has proven to be an inefficient spur to job creation and does not merit repeating," and concluded that "the country's economic future depends on Congress’ ability to rein in the growth of federal spending."

[-] 4 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

Sorry, I cannot vote for a mass murderer like Romney

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/15/colbert-super-pac-release_n_1207318.html

especially when he aligns himself with KNOWN communist defenders like Jack Welch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuupNpSh_3E

If Newt doesn't get the Nomination, them I'm voting for Obama

[-] 3 points by SkepticismAndWonder (29) from Imperial, CA 2 years ago

One is a lighter shade than the other. Presidential elections in America are a farce.

[-] 3 points by WhoisYouDaddy (4) 2 years ago

I will not vote for Obama!!! Did you all forget about those death panels? There is so much brainwashin' goin' on that Obama made you forget about the death panels. Think about granny and gramps. Do you really want Obama to decide if they live or die? Jesus I miss Sarah. The only smart one in the bunch. I think I am just going to right her in.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

More war or more war?

4 more years of Bush's war on terror - Obama and Romney 2012

[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Seeing how we have not had a terrorist attack here in America since the war on terror started that may not be so bad.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I would have no problem if the war on terror was actually a war on terror.

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

SADDAM ACTUALLY OPPOSED AL QAEDA

IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED US AND HAD NO INTENTION OF DOING SO

IRAQ DID NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. They are not building a nuclear weapon. They have no plan of attacking the United States with a nuclear weapon.

Going after Bin Laden and his thugs was an acceptable mission and should have been the only mission. The rest of the war on terror has been an absolute fraud and blunder resulting in the deaths of our US troops and the deaths of hundred's of thousands of innocent civilians.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

That was the Iraq war, which I agree was wrong but it was just one part of the overall war on terror. There are a lot more terrorists than just Bin Laden and his cronies and they should be sought out.

If something happens with Iran it will not be unilateral US action. The result of the world is just as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as the US; Europe and Asia alike. If Iran does something foolish that severely destabilizes the region the whole world will want to take action, not just the US.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Like I said

I would have no problem if the war on terror was actually a war on terror.

But this is not what is happening. A ton of fucked up shit is side tracking the real problem.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Does anyone here want to see Congress, the Supreme Court, the Oval Office and the economic power all in the hands of the Republicans, whose only agenda is to screw average Americans? Anybody?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Americans' have already been screwed ... continuing evidence will make it more apparent to ALL of the 99%.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

More apparent than it is already? How could it possibly be more apparent? All that would be is a catastrophe. You might as well be working for Mit Romney's campaign.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

You got it!

[-] 2 points by MonetizingDiscontent (1257) 2 years ago

Mitt Vs Obama. What a weak worthless boring inconsequential fake 1 on 1 debate that would be.

I want to see a

-Real-

-Verbal-

-BattleRoyale-

of

-Truly-

-Opposing-

-Foreign Policy Ideologies-

-And Monetary Philosophies-

::::::::((Mitt))&Obama ain't It:::::::::

I want a Cage Debate full WWF Sparks & 'Splodies worthy of Independence Day!

There's gotta be better match up out there somewhere, in all the fog of this economic/geopolitical chaos.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

Ron Paul will be up there, perhaps as vice president. Surprizingly Obama actually talked about a specific plan of action which none of the other canidates have yet. Hes started www.businessusa.com trying to streamline small business development.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Ron Paul will not be a VP candidate. He will give a speech at the Convention. That is about it.

[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 2 years ago

I will be voting for Rocky Anderson for president. He is the candidate of the newly formed Justice party.

https://www.voterocky.org/home

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

TY for going 3rd!!! Tytytyty!!! I'm looking at Gary Johnson (who I only recently learned about) but Rocky Anderson looks good/great as well. Rocky Anderson was intro'ed to me here on OWS just last week.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Personally, since 1964 I've never voted for a Republican or Democrat. This time around I'll probably vote for Jill Stein who I expect will be the Green Party candidate. I don't expect it to amount to much, not is OWS large enough or strong enough to seriously influence the outcome of the election which is why our main job needs to be to continue to build the movement. Once we have 20 or 30 million people occupying will be time enough to think about a next step.

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Thanks, I have only voted twice in my life and I was planning NOT to vote, but I will look at Jill.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Jill Stein is a physician. She's very smart and not at all kooky. On the other hand I don't expect her campaign to amount to much and voting for her should be viewed as more a moral existential choice than a serious political judgement.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

Same here. Although the green-rainbow party does sound kooky... and gay lol

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

The Green Rainbow Party is the specific name of the Green Party in Massachusetts. It evolved out of a merger between the Green Party in Massachusetts and the Rainbow Party, the most independent wing of the Rainbow Coalition, the movement that grew up around Jesse Jackson's two Presidential campaigns.

[-] 1 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

I know, I know shame on me for not voting, but I have had no faith in our government for many years. We need to clear them all out and start over!

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 2 years ago

it's easy to do, you have 2 chances to vote the bums out

1st register to vote

2nd vote in your incumbents primary, if he/she is corrupt vote against them, and encourage others to do so

3rd the slime that makes it past the primary,why vote against them in the fall, and be actively recruiting others to do the same the whole time

This is debndan's surefire recipe to root out corruption.

Our government has gotten this corrupt before in the past, and this was how they were ousted, along with many many protests inbetween

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

People have fought and died for your right to vote and you throw it away.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

True, but every bit helps :) Peace

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

not voting equals non participation. you can't bemoan the administraion ( whichever party wins) if you don't participate in the process.

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

I am sorry, but by voting I feel it would condone what is currently going on and it would continue the apathy which the American people have.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

you speak for all of the citizens of the USA?

[-] 0 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

Apathy is what got us in this mess along with this "me, me" attitude. People have given control of many areas of their lives to others and we have lost our ability to be self sustainable.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 2 years ago

I'm thinking that dem or repub, the candidates want the voter to feel completely disenfranchised, so they don't vote.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Two true!!! That's why I gotta go 3rd party this year. It's morally repugnant to me to vote for a job cremator or a lazy, lame-duck, sell-out who gave away the 4th for no reason.

Though I will vote D for my House rep.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

I'm deeply sorry Karen, but it is a good thing you have not voted.

Apathy does not a "me, me" attitude make, as apathy is to be WITHOUT a care.

A "me, me" attitude is the opposite of "People have given control".

Desiring people to have the "ability to be self sustainable" IS THE SAME as a "me, me" attitude.

You contradicted yourself three times in two sentences.

Please stop watching FOX and stop going to church. Read any book you can.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

voting is NOT apathy.

[-] 1 points by kickthemout (83) 2 years ago

There is substantial difference: Romney at least is a patriot and Obama is an anti-American, anti-White who even hated his own White mother. (Google it)

[-] 1 points by nachosrulz (63) from Eureka, CA 2 years ago

ermm... ron paul?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I will vote and encourage others to vote and promote candidates who are willing to be a one-term, dedicated representative and makes a lot of noise about anything that goes on in Congress if they are thwarted. The Tea Party candidates were very effective in stopping Congress. We need some that are as effective in moving it.

[-] 1 points by Skippy2 (485) 2 years ago

I am a life long Dem. I plan to vote against every incumbent candidate regardless of party affiliation. Reps/Dems incumbents are equally corrupt. They are both bought and paid for stooges of big money.

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

Good question! First, I will never vote for Obama again. Never ever will I VOTE for the destruction of the 4th amendment by a lame-duck coward.

I will go 3rd party for sure. Gary Johnson is good enough for me this year.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

Well since their is a shade or two of a difference, I'd probably vote Obama.

[-] 2 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

As a life long lib, that's given money to Kucinich, I will never vote for Obama again. He is a coward and politically inept.

Please consider third party. Please. Peace.

[-] 3 points by Spade2 (478) 2 years ago

I did consider third party but I will still vote for Obama; did you at least get my joke?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 2 years ago

lol :)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 2 years ago

Obama's a Wall Street Whore

Any vote for Obama is a vote AGAINST everything that OWS stands for.

Rocky Anderson for president in 2012: https://www.voterocky.org/home

[-] 0 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

same ole, same ole

[-] 0 points by myows (133) 2 years ago

ok you've got Romney who may be worth a quarter of a billion $$ and in the past you've had Kerry and Edwards who are worth 1/2 a billion.Obama seems more altrustic but still has some tight ties with some questionable people who probably contributed to the financial disaster of 2008 and people who reaped the benefits of the bailout. The point for me is who's gonna represent the middle class --- and I believe (other than maybe Ron Paul) the answer is NOBODY ! I work for Verizon.They are a healthy and profitable company.They paid no federal income taxes the past 2 years and even got a tax refund ! The top executives raked in a quarter of a billlion $$$ in pay over the last 4 years.The company sends American jobs to India and also is trying to take away the workers pensions and reduce their healthcare coverage. Do you think any politicians on either side of the aisle have anything to say about this bad corporate citizen? No! The pols on both sides of the aisle are bought and paid for by the corporations. We need an average Joe to somehow get in there and clean up the corruption in the system but how does an average Joe get 50 million for a campaign or fair coverage from the media?

[-] -3 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

I am not going to vote.

[-] -2 points by karenpoore (902) 2 years ago

I will not either because it would be condoning what is ...

[-] 2 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

Amen. I wish I didnt have to pay taxes... I am tired of helping the greedy kill.

[+] -5 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

...'Barack the magic negro'-Rush Limbaugh or Mitt with his magic/holy underwear-economicallydiscardedcitizen

[+] -9 points by believeingod (-72) 2 years ago

The facts are this: when the president took office, unemployment stood at 7.8%. It rose to 10.1% in April 2009, and now stands at 8.6%. The number of unemployed eclipsed 13 million in March 2009, and has remained above 13 million for 31 straight months.

House Republicans are taking decisive action to create jobs. Since January, we have passed 27 bipartisan jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate. And this week, the House will consider H.R. 3630 which will extend the Payroll Tax Holiday for another year while requiring no new government spending.

[+] -9 points by believeingod (-72) 2 years ago

Side by Side The House Republican Plan compared to the President's House Republicans' first priority is to pass job-creating legislation. As of January 16, the House has approved 27 bipartisan jobs bills that are awaiting action in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Regulations The Obama administration has publicly listed a total of 219 new regulatory actions under consideration for the upcoming year, each of which would have an estimated cost to our economy of $100 million or more. The President's Plan The President has ordered a review of all government regulations. In his address to Congress, he stated that they "identified over 500 reforms, which will save billions of dollars over the next few years." House Republicans' Plan House Republicans are supportive of President Obama's intent to review Federal regulations. Our regulatory relief agenda includes repeal of specific regulations, stopping rules like Cement MACT, expediting the permitting process for construction projects, and making structural reforms to the rule-making system. The House has approved more than 27 pro-growth measures to address the jobs crisis and we urge the Senate to approve these measures. Payroll Tax Holiday In the past, the Obama administration said that the payroll tax was "a one-year, temporary tax break intended to help working families in these tough economic times and to help generate growth and jobs. After the temporary provision expires, payroll tax rates will return to what they were before." When the payroll tax reduction was first enacted in December 2010, the unemployment rate stood at 9.4%. Today, more than 13 million Americans are still unemployed. The President's Plan Cuts payroll taxes by 50% next year. House Republicans' Plan In addition to keeping payroll taxes low for another year, House Republicans are focusing on reforming the tax code to make it easier to create jobs while making it fairer, flatter, and simpler for all workers. Unemployment Insurance For 34 consecutive months the unemployment rate has been at or above 8% — the level the president said unemployment would never reach if the "stimulus" was approved. Prior to the enactment of the "stimulus," unemployment had not been above 8% for two and a half years consecutively since the Great Depression. The President's Plan Extends Unemployment Insurance for another year. House Republicans' Plan House Republicans want to ensure that those who truly need unemployment insurance can rely upon it but also reform the program to ensure it focuses on helping get people back to work – like instituting basic work requirements, allowing states to test innovative state-based solutions, and permitting states to perform drug screening and testing to improve prospects for future employment. We are also ensuring that our children and grandchildren are not paying for today’s job crisis by adding to the deficit. Stimulus Infastructure Spending Stimulus Spending has failed. In 2009, the Obama administration promised that unemployment would not go above 8% if the $1 trillion "stimulus" became law, but unemployment has averaged 9.4%. In May 2011, a new study was released by economists from Ohio State that said the actual impact of the $1.2 trillion "stimulus" was a net job loss of 550,000. The President's Plan Proposes the infastructure improvement of 35,000 schools, the rehabilitiation of homes and businesses in locations with a high rate of foreclosure, and the creation of thousands of transportation projects nationwide. House Republicans' Plan House Republicans want to use infrastructure funds more effectively to support economic growth without borrowing more money. This can be done simply by removing artificial funding barriers which set aside 10% of state infrastructure funds for items such as transportation museums and the acquisition of scenic easements. This would allow states to devote more funding to the types of infrastructure the president has advocated and that House Republicans support, without requiring new spending. Infastructure Bank In 2009, the Democrat majority first proposed the development of a federal Infrastructure Bank, a wholly owned government corporation controlled by a five-member board of directors with the ability to issue bonds and to use the proceeds to provide loans and loan guarantees for state and local construction. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, most infrastructure bank proposals would exposes taxpayers to the risk of default. The President's Plan Sets up an independent fund to attract investments and issue loans based on two criteria: project need and economic benefit. House Republicans' Plan House Republicans want to use infrastructure funds more effectively to support economic growth without borrowing more money or creating additional bureacracy. As stated above, this can be done simply by removing artificial funding barriers which set aside 10% of state infrastructure funds for items such as transportation museums and the acquisition of scenic easements. This allows states to devote more funding to the types of infrastructure that would be provided through the president's proposal while preventing additional spending and shielding taxpayers from risky investments. Tax Credit for Hiring the Unemployed In March 2010 Congress passed the HIRE Act (H.R. 2847), which suspended employers’ requirement to pay payroll taxes for certain new employees and provided a tax credit of $1,000 to an employer if they retained an employee for 52 weeks. Once again, the temporary tax credit program failed to make a significant and sustained dent in unemployment, which was 9.7% the month before the bill was passed and averaged 9.6% since then. The President's Plan Provides companies a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. House Republicans' Plan The House Republican Plan for America’s Job Creators includes truly pro-growth, long-term tax reform to provide American job creators with the certainty that they need to hire and expand, rather than a short-term tax subsidy for temporary hiring. House Republicans put fundamental tax reform in our budget to make the tax code fairer, flatter, simpler and more competitive to create jobs, and it’s our hope that the president would support that effort. Stimulus Education Spending The original stimulus included $53.6 billion for the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund," which was generally used to subsidize states' public education costs and supplement state budgets, rather than hire a substantial number of new employees. In a number of areas, cash-strapped state and local governments used the money to give employees raises instead. The President's Plan "Thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work." House Republicans' Plan House Republicans agree with the 222 economists from across the country who stated in December 2009 that "The 2009 near-term 'stimulus' has proven to be an inefficient spur to job creation and does not merit repeating," and concluded that "the country's economic future depends on Congress’ ability to rein in the growth of federal spending."