E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“The prospects for President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan grew dimmer Monday as he unveiled the fine print of how it would be paid for—primarily through tax increases that Republicans said would destroy jobs, not create them,” the Wall Street Journal writes.
The New York Times: White House officials said they nonetheless believed the proposal could pass Congress. The White House press secretary, Jay Carney, said administration officials had seen “some conciliatory messaging from some members of Congress” since lawmakers returned from their summer recess after presumably getting an earful from voters fed up with the political brinkmanship that characterized the negotiations over the debt ceiling.
More: Congressional Republicans were not, however, sounding that conciliatory; they promptly fired off e-mails to let their displeasure with the idea of tax increases be known. “Beware the Tax Man,” was the subject line in an e-mail from one House Republican staff member. Brendan Buck, spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, added his own quick reaction, criticizing the proposal as one that “doesn’t appear to have been offered in that bipartisan spirit.”
Leave a Comment:
Obama in 2012.
Democratic House 2012. Obama 2012.
Democratic House 2012. Obama 2012.
About two-thirds of American women are breadwinners/co-breadwinners for their families. Women face unique challenges during periods of recession. For example, two-thirds of all K-12 teachers are women at at time of teacher layoffs. The following is a very quick run-down of help and opportunities for women. A longer detailed look is in the fact sheet URL listed below:
Women and the American Jobs Act:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/09/09/women-and-american-jobs-act
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/women_factsheet_jobs.pdf
The GOP does all the balking, and all the 'bawking'!
The American people, as Mitch so often seems to channel, are fed up with the games the GOP are playing!
Obama's plan = Spend and Tax.
How predictable. 'Stimulus I' for $860 Billion didn't work. Why does he think 'Stimulus II' for half as much will do any better?
What did Einstein say about insanity - "Insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome".
You are right Roy and that is exactly why republicans are in trouble.
So Roy, your plan is to do nothing?
And by the way, Stimulus 1 worked, you can say it didn't over and over again and believe it, but the facts prove that the recession would have been much worse without it.
The problem was it wasn't enough. Ask your precious Congressional Budget Office. You guys depend on what they have to say until it proves you wrong, then claim they're not really bi-partisan.
ROY WILSON-336103
FYI, Stimulus 1 worked.
Insanity is to going back to w. bush policies which is what the present crop of GOP/TP are still offering. Tax cuts for the rich and coporations never worked. You don't grow economy by shrinking it a.k.a race to the bottom concept. Maybe you should ask an honest Saint. Ronald Regan economic team why he raised taxes 11 times.
In your world, he Saint Regan, will be a tax and spend libbie.
LOL... PEN, what's wrong with "w. bush policies"? Obama seems to like them or most of them... Just sayin'!!!
Any body but Obama in 2012.........Stimunlus 1 worked so good .....let's try a smaller version
Please hurry 2012 !!!!
Roy * 1Hiram - Economists say that the stimulus produced betwen 1.8 and 3 million jobs. Where's the proof that the stimulus didn't work? Obama 2012!!
laurie-480643
Datas and statistics are never part of their talking points. Why do you think they'll cut education to fund tax cuts for corporations and the rich?
LMAO........those famous "saved" jobs.........too funny.....even obama laughed about Stimulus's nonexistent jobs production. Last I heard he is up to like 2.8 million jobs LOST since he took office........add the $4 Trillion in deficit he has added in 2 1/2 years and we have an economic mess created by Obama.
pen.....bring on any fact you want buddy.
Whoops....my wrong....just over 1.7 million jobs lost.......not 2.8 million in #1.13.
Tom, Tamarac, FL "So Roy, your plan is to do nothing? And by the way, Stimulus 1 worked"
My plan would be to cut regulations (a record 81,000 pages of new regulation were added in Obama's first year - 2009) and open up our fossil fuel reserves (Tops in the entire World) for development, and close the tax loopholes for the 'rich' (they encourage tax shelters, not growth), while lowering the tax rate on corporations (they just make us less competitive against foreigners). I would also allow overseas profits to be repatriated without extra taxes (right now, they invest in overseas growth/jobs rather than pay taxes to bring them here).
As for 'Stimulus 1', the CBO says it may have 'created or saved' about 1 million jobs, but at what cost? That is a cost of about $860,000 per job, most of them temporary (When the stimulus money ran out, so did the jobs). Government waste at work.
By contrast, the private sector spends about $42,000 per year for a worker that actually makes something that can be sold for a profit. Private sector efficiency at work.
1Hiram " Last I heard he is up to like 2.8 million jobs LOST since he took office........add the $4 Trillion in deficit he has added in 2 1/2 years and we have an economic mess created by Obama."
Actually, the official numbers for Obama's first 2 years (From the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics) is a bit more dismal than that. According to their site below, the average non-farm employment for 2008 (Bush's last year) was 136 million, while for 2010 (Obama's first 2 years), it is 129 Million.
That's a LOSS of an average of 7 million jobs in just 2 years under Obama. Not something you'll see reported by the liberal media. Here's the official government link;
http://www.bls.gov/ces/#tables See Table B-1 under Historical Employment.
Yep....ROY.....Obama is in line to be the first Prsident to have negetive job growth during a single term.......
Let's face it, the GOP will be against anything that Pres. Obama proposes. They want him out of office, for sure. They will let the country go down the tubes just to satisfy themselves, the heck with what the people want. I only hope everyone will wise up to this mentality. The GOP will let this bill die in committee before letting it pass. Vote these obstructionist out of office!
Sorry JoAnn, but I think I'll wait for the bill to be posted online for 72 hours (I think that's how long Obama said) so that I get a chance to read it before I blindly poo-poo the GOP... I know you want to slap the opposition in the face every chance you get, but this is one bill that perhaps you should stop and research the fine print first....
Disclaimer; IMHO...
Ellie Mae Clampett
I would rather stop and rethink GOP/TP intentions.......make president fail mantra. That means, the country fails too. Don't you think so? millions are jobless, economy uncertainty as a result of political posturing. US legislatures/governors signing oaths to Norquist, where's their allegiance? All these should bother a sane mind......i think. They'll tell you Govt. is bad for the common man but good for failing wall street, coporations and the politicians themselves who wants to stay in power till death. Stop and Think.
Ya Ya Ya.. And it's all because of those darn Republicans.... I imagine your next statement (possible opinion???) will go something like this "those poor Democrats and Obama, they had duct tape over their mouths and blinders over their eyes while those Republicans drove the car into the ditch"... Forgive me for thinking they had any responsibility in the economic crisis we find ourselves in, my bad!!!
indeed, the tax man commeth to collect from those who are not paying their fair share.
there you go again - that darn, socialist president with his tax and spend american jobs act. of course, there are tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses and investing in america's infrastructure for job growth, safety and businesses to move their products to market; but hey, "he's on the ropes, why would we want to help him" even if it does mean screwing the american people. we're betting the american people will still blame the president."
No cuts in government spending, tax increases, short term gimmicks to stimulate jobs, and actually even more big government spending that failed to produce growth the first time tried.
Hurry 2012.......NOW we do need change !!!!!
So on top of everything we get republican static on the jobs bill! As a republican of 40 years I just want to remind my fellow repubs that the last time a political aristocracy treated the masses with such indifference the backlash involved guillotines, and if tax cuts are the magic charm that is going to dig us out of this hole why is Bank of America laying off another 30,000 employees. Time for me to become an independent.
President Obama shows us how you support jobs. Tell the Senate democrats to vote for this bill to block government case against Boeing.
So Roy, your plan is to do nothing?
And by the way, Stimulas 1 worked, you can say it didn't over and over again and believe it, but the facts prove that the recession would have been much worse without it.
The problem was it wasn't enough. Ask your precious Congressional Budget Office.
No Tom, the facts do not prove that the recession would have been worse without the stimulus.
What happened was economics professors who hoped for money from the Federal government proceeded to make the claim that the stimulus saved the economy. They can't prove that it did anything. In fact there is a growing body of economics PhDs who are adamant that addional Keynesian stimulus will fail.
The only reason that the stimulus is supported by some economists is the "buttered bread" syndrome. For any economist to get money from the government he has to offer the government something. The easiest thing to offer is false support for more government spending in the form of Keynesian stimulus packages. When it fails you then come up with an excuse (No enough, not targetted properly, too slow, etc.)
And this additional "jobs bill" does fit the definition of insanity. Its the same stimulus that was first tried by Senor Shrug (AKA George W. Bush - White House Resident 2000-2008), and then doubled down on by Obama in 2009. Why are we trying it again?
Republicans are going to ignore their constituents yet again in favor of their corporate $. Nothing new there. Surely honor is not known to them. They just keep retreating from govt. Let us all help them make it a COMPLETE withdrawl this next election. They shame, the disgrace and the hole they have dug this country into is unforgivable.
Perhaps a better plan would be to make it a $1 billion jobs plan and tax 100% of the income over $250,000 for all those rich folks who are not paying their "fair share". After all, the money all these rich freeloaders are making and spending doesn't contribute to the economy any way - right? Plus, they are not really "making" that money, it's just falliing from the trees or being stolen from the poor and downtrodden, so why shouldn't they give it all to the government to redistribute as it sees fit? Seems like a perfect plan - don't you agree?
WakeUpAmerica-3716462
That's right. Money falling from trees........just like $14billion GE made by paying what tax?
And now GE is moving its X-ray Division to China and investing $2 Billion and building 6 research centers......in CHINA. Jeff Inmelt is Obama head jobs adiviser........and he is moving jobs overseas and paying tax lawyer tens of MILLIONS $$$ to find and create loopholes to avoid Federal taxes. Obama's head jobs adviser is doing this..........We are in trouble !!!!!
Hurry 2012
WakeUpAmerica, You have the gall to complain about who is paying their fair share. Well lets see..... BofA got hugh tax breaks, a stimulus to keep them viable and then they turn and dump 30K into the unemployment. In my opinion yes they are stealing from the poor and downtrodden. Why aren't the executives being held accountable for their bad decisions, mergers? they lay off two exec's and save maybe 20 million per year, lay off 30 thousand and pocket $5 billion, if thats not a redistribution of wealth then I don't know what is.
This is exactly what the President expects to happen ... Republicans baulking once again. It wouldn't matter if the President was able to deliver a job to every unemployed American wanting a job, Republicans would want to stop it. Repubs have NO JOB PLAN other than that 11-12 page briefing they put out earlier in the year. Their primary, in fact ONLY, priority is Obama's job and to make him fail at any objective he attempts. Obama knows it, Democrats know it, and the American voters are starting to know it as well. Why does anyone think Obama is going to Virginia and Ohio FIRST to deliver his job plan? Don't know about Cantor, but Boehner is up for re-election ... he'd better start thinking of his own job instead of the President's.
Repubs have NO JOB PLAN other than more tax cuts for the wealthy & the corporations ... PERIOD!
Obama is simply in campaign mode, this was never a serious jobs creation plan.
Its funny how the Repub voters pick up the voices of the Repubs in office ... like parrots, I swear. If Boehner ended his sentences with "we don't pee on electric fences" I swear the Repub voters would start doing the exact same thing ... hahaha!
But, back to the Jobs Plan ... I don't think Repubs have ANYTHING to brag about ... no jobs plan either, other than that 12-13 page booklet with all the nice colored pictures. Let's face it, Repubs are only interested in ONE JOB ... that of Obama's ... and the people suffering in the USA right now KNOW IT and will SHOW IT in 2012. Repubs are going to lose the HOUSE once again and go to the BACK OF THE BUS!
This bill is not recession insurance as he says........it is re-election insurance.
Son of Stimulus to the rescue.........more spending, higher taxes,......no jobs
What you mean MacNfries, if Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) Limbaugh or Norquist ended their sentence we pee on electric fences, all these low information tea people GOP republicans would get electrocuted. And the rest would cheer for the executions, cause they like to see people die.
Obama's jobs plan most likely will not be effective enough to warrant the massive spending increase. It lacks a focus on the problems that got us into the situation and a way to create sustainable job growth.
The payroll tax cuts take more money away from the Social Security trust fund which is already running out of money. It is currently taking in less money than it pays out. When the trust fund is exhausted in 2036 it will only be able to pay out 77% of benefits. After then, unless tax increases, benefit cuts, or other changes to the program are implemented it will continue to have to reduce benefit payments. All of which clearly indicates something needs to be done.
Our national crisis is joblessness and low wages, but the deficit is clearly a problem. We do need to ensure we get our economy back on track from the devastation of the recession, but we also need to recognize the danger of our enormous national debt. Not only is the current debt over $14 Trillion, but the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2021 federal debt will be over $20 trillion
First of all Scott get your facts straight. The payroll tax holiday will not take money out of the social security trust fund, the short fall will be made up from the general fund to keep it at it's current funding level. Second of all the social security trust fund is not currently taking in less money than it pays out, it is taking in more than it pays out, that will be the case till your 2036 date. An easy fix to social security is to raise the amount you have to pay payroll tax on from 106,000 to 200,000. But that would effect congress, they'd have to pay more in payroll tax which they are not willing to do. Even though they get a free pension from us tax payers when they retire.
Mo - incorrect. This year, I believe for the first time, the SS Trust Fund will be used to make up for the difference between the inflo of payroll taxes (plus the additional money provided from general revenues - more debt - to make up for the payroll tax holiday). That will continue for the next 25 years, at which point the current $2.4 trillion in the Trust Fund, plus interest, will be exhausted. From that point going forward payroll taxes will cover only about 75% of benefits. Modest changes to SS, similar to those made in the early 1980s, will keep SS fully solvent at current benefit levels for another 75 years. The shortfall has nothing to do with politics. The cause is demographics. The big baby boom generation is retiring, while at the same time our population is growing at the slowest rate in the country's history.
The Trust Fund you speak of does not exist. It is now listed on the National Deficit to show what the government took from Trust Fund when it existed.
The Social Security money and Medicare money taken from a person each year is used in the General Fund. Since there is a deficit for the last ten years due to expenditures other than Social Security and Medicare the replicans want to reduce benefits to allow more of the Social security and Medi-care Funds to pay for more of their other expenditures.
Google National Debt and you will learn that the Social Security Trust Fund was used and the government gave the Trust Fund as a National Debt that will never be re-paid. Around 1966 was time frame.
rogerbeard - I beg to differ. The SS Trust Fund is being accounted for in the "Intragovernmental Holdings" portion of the national debt in special-interest Treasury Bonds, where it is receiving interest. The last total
I saw for that number was around $2.4 trillion. That money will be used to pay help pay benefits now that more money is being paid out in benefits than is being collected in payroll taxes. That money is expected to last and keep SS solvent for more than 25 years, until around 2037. Modest adjustments to the program will keep it solvent far beyond that and are needed due to demographic issues such as people living longer.
The reason this is an issue at all is how Intragovernmental Holdings are dealt with in federal government budgets. Because they are not part of publically held national debt, they are not included in either the President's budget, the budgets from Congress, or the budget projections from the Congressional Budget Office. That has "hidden" the true extent of our debt problems for decades. As that money from Intragovermental Holdings is used to pay benefits, the U.S. Treasury must sell more publically held debt to pay of the special-interest U.S. treasuries and that money must now be reflected in all government budget calculations. The national debt does not increase because it simply replaces special-interest treasuries with U.S. treasuries, but it creates havoc with the various budget calculations.
On the Treasury website, there is a breakdown of the IGH. Some of the Government Account Series holders, as of 9/30/2010:
$2.4 trillion - Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (Social Security)
$770 billion - Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund
$282 billion - Military Retirement Fund, Dept of Defense
$279 billion - Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$187 billion - Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund
$42 billion - Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund
As all replicans and trash-baggers said last nite:" No taxes of any kind on big oil as they provide us a service we need."
An outright admission to who they cow-toe to.
As long as none of these politicians are impacted by the decisions they make, nothing is really going to improve for the general population. First, and foremost, politicians need to have the same benefits as the general public ... once that happens, their approach to FIXING the problems will take a dynamic turn. Right now they've built themselves a castle of PERKS that avoids their being affected in anyway to the crappy partisan politics they use to mask their true desires ... staying in office and living off the taxpayers. As far as I'm concerned, I can't see much difference between Washington politicians and British Royalty ... both live off everyone else and do very little to earn that privilege.
Notice how a thread of comments falls apart when information is posted on the "Intragovernmental Holdings" portion of the national debt. It seems NONE of the paid political bloggers want to touch the subject. Could it be that an understanding of this complex issue would cause a firestorm in public opinion directed against both political parties who for decades have used it to make their budgets look better???