What is happening in the senate is hilarious.
The president demanded a simple up or down vote on his jobs bill, and yesterday Mitch McConnell proposed that the senate vote on President Obama's jobs bill. Immediately, Harry Reid blocked the vote because he did not have enough Democrat support. Then Reid came out with the statement "a majority of the Senate" supports Obama's bill. Minutes later the Obama2012 Campaign issued the following email:
President Obama is in Dallas today urging Americans who support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it already.
Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote -- ever.
It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act -- and they think you won't do anything about it.
But here's something you can do: Find Republican members of Congress on Twitter, call them out, and demand they pass this bill.
Today the Republicans will again request a vote on the bill and Reid will block it. Lets see how long this continues.
The Obama camp is betting on the stupidity of their constituency. I have a feeling they will be disappointed.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 05, 2011, 09:34:49 AM
What is happening in the senate is hilarious.
The president demanded a simple up or down vote on his jobs bill, and yesterday Mitch McConnell proposed that the senate vote on President Obama's jobs bill. Immediately, Harry Reid blocked the vote because he did not have enough Democrat support. Then Reid came out with the statement "a majority of the Senate" supports Obama's bill. Minutes later the Obama2012 Campaign issued the following email:
President Obama is in Dallas today urging Americans who support the American Jobs Act to demand that Congress pass it already.
Though it's been nearly a month since he laid out this plan, House Republicans haven't acted to pass it. And House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is out there actually bragging that they won't even put the jobs package up for a vote -- ever.
It's not clear which part of the bill they now object to: building roads, hiring teachers, getting veterans back to work. They're willing to block the American Jobs Act -- and they think you won't do anything about it.
But here's something you can do: Find Republican members of Congress on Twitter, call them out, and demand they pass this bill.
Today the Republicans will again request a vote on the bill and Reid will block it. Lets see how long this continues.
The Obama camp is betting on the stupidity of their constituency. I have a feeling they will be disappointed.
Yeah, political games and gridlock due to the Tea Party idiots is really freaking funny while the economy is sliding back into recession due to fears about political games and gridlock in Washington and economic problems in Europe.
Hey, how are all those austerity measures working for Europe by the way? Everything all fixed over there now?
Yes. Just a hoot.
Didn't realize Reid and his gang were Tea Partists?
Maybe with a wee bit of nanny.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 05, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
Didn't realize Reid and his gang were Tea Partists?
He's trying to pass the bill, you don't bring up a bill until you have the votes. he's not playing games, the Republicans are by trying to force an early vote in order to embarrass the President somehow. That's a game.
It's also obvious that the Republicans don't really give a crap about jobs or the economy, just about winning elections and sound bites. The modern Republican party is a bunch of immature children.
Quote from: swake on October 05, 2011, 10:15:22 AM
He's trying to pass the bill, you don't bring up a bill until you have the votes. he's not playing games, the Republicans are by trying to force an early vote in order to embarrass the President somehow. That's a game.
It's also obvious that the Republicans don't really give a crap about jobs or the economy, just about winning elections and sound bites. The modern Republican party is a bunch of immature children.
But the president keeps demanding an "up or down vote NOW."
Why do the Democrats refuse to support this bill?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 05, 2011, 10:49:09 AM
But the president keeps demanding an "up or down vote NOW."
Why do the Democrats refuse to support this bill?
Why is this hilarious? Are you finding this
Quote1. Extremely amusing.
2. Boisterously merry.
?
Quote from: Gaspar on October 05, 2011, 09:34:49 AM
What is happening in the senate is hilarious.
I am so LOL'ing...
Bernanke says economic recovery close to faltering
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says the economic recovery "is close to faltering" and the central bank is prepared to take further steps to support it.
The economy is growing more slowly than the Federal Reserve had expected, Bernanke said Tuesday before the congressional Joint Economic Committee. He said the biggest factor depressing consumer confidence is poor job growth.
"We need to make sure that the recovery continues and doesn't drop back and that the unemployment rate continues to fall downward," Bernanke said.
http://www.ktul.com/story/15612792/bernanke-warns-congress-against-deep-spending-cuts?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/15612792/bernanke-warns-congress-against-deep-spending-cuts?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Jocularity, Jocularity
(http://s1.proxy04.twitpic.com/photos/large/415813894.jpg)
http://twitpic.com/6vkc1y (http://twitpic.com/6vkc1y)
Congress is so fractured with their battling ideolgies that they coundn't vote their way out of a wet paper bag.
Quote from: swake on October 05, 2011, 10:15:22 AM
He's trying to pass the bill, you don't bring up a bill until you have the votes. he's not playing games, the Republicans are by trying to force an early vote in order to embarrass the President somehow. That's a game.
It's also obvious that the Republicans don't really give a crap about jobs or the economy, just about winning elections and sound bites. The modern Republican party is a bunch of immature children.
Do you really believe the President is trying to create jobs with this "bill"? He's playing old line politics as well. "See those Republicans don't want their wealthy friends to have to pay their fair share for a recovery!"
If Reid claims the majority of the Senate supports this bill and the GOP is saying they won't filibuster, then why isn't he bringing it up for an up or down vote? Privately, a lot of Democrat senators are against any tax increases right now.
Senate Democrats have jettisoned President Obama's proposal to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000, raising the threshold to $1 million in an attempt to win more Democratic votes.
Democratic leaders say they want to impose a 5 percent surtax on the tax liability of millionaires, which would raise about $445 billion over 10 years — roughly the cost of Obama's jobs proposal.
Even with the overhaul of Obama's jobs package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was not certain it would gain unanimous Democratic support.
Even with the adjustments, this bill is doomed with Democrats who have come to realize that any increase in taxes puts economic recovery at risk. So basically they are going to swap the president's tax structure and give it a try with the Buffett tax alone, but that will also fly like a lead balloon with referendum elections looming.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/185693-senate-dems-quash-obamas-tax-plan
Currently President Obama is polling at 41% against any Republican at 47%. In fact I think the genetically engineered rat with a human ear is polling .5% above President Obama now because the people think it will have a better chance of listening.
(http://thetruthsyndicate.com/files/2010/11/mouseear.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on October 05, 2011, 04:03:10 PM
Senate Democrats have jettisoned President Obama's proposal to raise taxes on families making more than $250,000, raising the threshold to $1 million in an attempt to win more Democratic votes.
Democratic leaders say they want to impose a 5 percent surtax on the tax liability of millionaires, which would raise about $445 billion over 10 years — roughly the cost of Obama's jobs proposal.
Even with the overhaul of Obama's jobs package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he was not certain it would gain unanimous Democratic support.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/185693-senate-dems-quash-obamas-tax-plan
Unanimous? When is anything unanimus?
Jeez, finish out the statement.
But Democratic leaders believe the change will broaden the bill's popularity in their caucus.
"We're going to move to have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more," Reid said at a Wednesday press conference.
"Drawing the line at a million dollars is the right thing to do. In the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of households that make $250,000 or $300,000 a year. They are not rich," said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "In large parts of the country that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that is associated with wealth in America."
Can you link the approval ratings?
Quote from: Townsend on October 05, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
Unanimous? When is anything unanimus?
Jeez, finish out the statement.
But Democratic leaders believe the change will broaden the bill's popularity in their caucus.
"We're going to move to have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more," Reid said at a Wednesday press conference.
"Drawing the line at a million dollars is the right thing to do. In the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of households that make $250,000 or $300,000 a year. They are not rich," said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "In large parts of the country that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that is associated with wealth in America."
Can you link the approval ratings?
Isn't it amazing you have to consistently ask for those?
Quote from: Hoss on October 05, 2011, 04:16:57 PM
Isn't it amazing you have to consistently ask for those?
Even with the "it will improve your reputation" advice.
Quote from: Townsend on October 05, 2011, 04:11:06 PM
Unanimous? When is anything unanimus?
Jeez, finish out the statement.
But Democratic leaders believe the change will broaden the bill's popularity in their caucus.
"We're going to move to have the richest of the rich pay a little bit more," Reid said at a Wednesday press conference.
"Drawing the line at a million dollars is the right thing to do. In the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of households that make $250,000 or $300,000 a year. They are not rich," said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. "In large parts of the country that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that is associated with wealth in America."
Can you link the approval ratings?
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot
I do this because I love you.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 05, 2011, 04:51:13 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot
I do this because I love you.
"generic" not "any". Certainly not anything in the field at the moment.
End of the article:
Quotegeneric GOP candidate leads among male voters by 13 points and runs even with the president among female voters.
Voters under 30 continue to favor Obama, while their elders like the Republican better.
Voters not affiliated with either major political party prefer the Republican candidate by a 45% to 34% margin.
Most Tea Party members (89%) support the generic Republican. Among non-members, Obama leads 52% to 35%.
Two-out-of-three (66%) in the Political Class opt for Obama, while 55% of Mainstream voters support the generic Republican.
In the latest Generic Congressional Ballot, Republicans have jumped back to a six-point lead over Democrats. This is the widest gap between the two parties in a month of weekly tracking.
As of now, the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary race is all about Perry and Romney, with no other candidate reaching double-digit support. Among GOP voters in New Hampshire, Romney is the clear favorite over Perry, 39% to 18%.
The number of Republicans and Democrats in the country is just about even. In fact, the gap between the parties is the smallest it has ever been in nearly nine years of monthly tracking.
CBO finished scoring Obama's jobs bill.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that the "American Jobs Act" would make the federal deficit jump $288 billion in 2012. In other words, the 2012 deficit would rise by about twenty-five percent--from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The most recent budget fight between Republicans and Democrats resulted in just a $22 billion cut to the 2012 deficit.
One tiny step forward, two leaps backwards.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 07, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
CBO finished scoring Obama's jobs bill.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that the "American Jobs Act" would make the federal deficit jump $288 billion in 2012. In other words, the 2012 deficit would rise by about twenty-five percent--from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The most recent budget fight between Republicans and Democrats resulted in just a $22 billion cut to the 2012 deficit.
One tiny step forward, two leaps backwards.
I'm still of the opinion that someone might trust your posts a little bit if you linked them to a supporting graph/article/story.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 07, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
CBO finished scoring Obama's jobs bill.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that the "American Jobs Act" would make the federal deficit jump $288 billion in 2012. In other words, the 2012 deficit would rise by about twenty-five percent--from $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion. The most recent budget fight between Republicans and Democrats resulted in just a $22 billion cut to the 2012 deficit.
One tiny step forward, two leaps backwards.
Fact-checking your posts is becoming such a pain in the donkey. And yet I feel it necessary to sweep up after your incomplete and uncited fragments.
Via the CBO's Director's Blog: (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2875)
QuoteWhat Is The Impact of the Bills on the Federal Deficit?
CBO estimates that enacting the President's plan would increase the budget deficit by $288 billion in 2012 and decrease deficits by $3 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimated deficit reduction of $3 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts and $450 billion in additional tax revenue from the offsets specified in the bill.
CBO estimates that enacting Senator Reid's alternative bill would increase the budget deficit by $285 billion in 2012 and decrease deficits by $6 billion over the 2012-2021 period. That estimated deficit reduction of $6 billion over the coming decade is the net effect of $447 billion in additional spending and tax cuts and $453 billion in additional tax revenue from the offset specified in the bill.
So yes. It increases the deficit -- IN ONE YEAR -- and then actually offsets it more by $3B over the next decade or so.
Another great nugget came out during the CBO testimony to the Super Committee last week . . . turns out that full employment would trim our existing deficit by a third. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/cbo-full-employment-would-reduce-deficit-by-a-third.php) The implication, of course, is that the best and biggest deficit trimming strategy would be to get the whole country working, immediately. It'd be pretty smart to actually start down that road, wouldn't it?
http://news.yahoo.com/spin-meter-obama-disconnects-rhetoric-reality-081418391.html
Interesting. The AP is usually in his pocket.
Now it looks like this whole "Jobs Initiative" is no more than a campaign fundraising effort.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-jobs-council-stacked-with-democratic-donors/
Quote from: Gaspar on October 11, 2011, 12:24:36 PM
Now it looks like this whole "Jobs Initiative" is no more than a campaign fundraising effort.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-jobs-council-stacked-with-democratic-donors/
Were you suprised by this? It seems that almost everything he says is some form of a campaign speech.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 11, 2011, 12:24:36 PM
Now it looks like this whole "Jobs Initiative" is no more than a campaign fundraising effort.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-jobs-council-stacked-with-democratic-donors/
So why is this a bad thing? Walk me through the damage that this causes to his council, the jobs bill, and to the strength of the Republic in general. I'm not seeing it.
Quote from: we vs us on October 11, 2011, 01:03:27 PM
So why is this a bad thing? Walk me through the damage that this causes to his council, the jobs bill, and to the strength of the Republic in general. I'm not seeing it.
It's just that every time he talks about jobs it reminds me of my 6 year old talking about paleontology. He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.
This was the man that vowed to eliminate lobby money from the White House. He now surrounds himself with stables of donors ready to regurgitate cash in exchange for the next big stimulus deal.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 11, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
It's just that every time he talks about jobs it reminds me of my 6 year old talking about paleontology. He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.
This was the man that vowed to eliminate lobby money from the White House. He now surrounds himself with stables of donors ready to regurgitate cash in exchange for the next big stimulus deal.
The jobs bill as I've heard it described does nothing for Facebook or Amazon, investment firms or banks, Xerox or UC Berkley. If there's corruption or pay for play, I'm not seeing it.
Also: I'm not saying Obama is somehow above the law or angelic and impossible to be corrupted, but just because you don't like the guy and like to see failure in every possible thing he does, doesn't mean that everything around him is in fact fatally flawed. Aside from your vague assertions, there's no evidence that the makeup of his jobs council is in the least bit improper.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 11, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
It's just that every time he talks about jobs it reminds me of my 6 year old talking about paleontology. He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.
This was the man that vowed to eliminate lobby money from the White House. He now surrounds himself with stables of donors ready to regurgitate cash in exchange for the next big stimulus deal.
And quite interesting he's surrounded himself with exactly the people for whom the Occupy Wall Street hoodlums are vilifying. What are the chances that the corporate tax structure is going to change for multi-nationals like GE or Xerox while they are bundling millions for President Obama? Slim and none. All this talk of tax increases by President Obama is really cheap electioneering that he has zero intention of following up on. Blame for that failure will go right at the feet of "obstructionist Republicans".
At least the Rethugs are honest about not wanting to raise taxes rather than spinning a huge yarn about wanting to raise them but someone else won't let them.
Is it too simplistic to think that creating more employed people creates more demand which creates even more employees which creates more tax payers which creates more income which decreases the deficit provided we keep the big 3 expenditures in check?
If all of these things are true, why is a jobs bill a bad thing if corporations are holding off hiring until demand increases?
Quote from: carltonplace on October 11, 2011, 01:52:34 PM
Is it too simplistic to think that creating more employed people creates more demand which creates even more employees which creates more tax payers which creates more income which decreases the deficit provided we keep the big 3 expenditures in check?
If all of these things are true, why is a jobs bill a bad thing if corporations are holding off hiring until demand increases?
Carlton, your premise is correct. The more liberal members on here keep shooting it down why it's not happening because either they don't like the messenger or they don't understand what decision processes go into creating new jobs:
They don't want to hire in the face of uncertain increased employment costs of Obamacare, increased regulations, and increased hostility toward wealthy small business owners in this country. Large multi-nationals are going great guns and hiring, it's just that they are doing it overseas where their investment is welcomed with much lower barriers to commerce.
Sorry guys, not making this up, it's what happens when you erect too many barriers in your own country.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 11, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
He needs advisers who's stake in the game are not dependent on power dealing and stimulus funneling in exchange for contributions.
As long as corporations retain the right to spend unlimited sums of money supporting candidates, that will be the destiny of every politician. A broken system makes for broken people.
Edited to add: carltonplace, the government, through some heretofore undiscovered black magic, manages to destroy every penny that passes through it. At least that's what I've been told. ;)
My company doesnt hire Americans. All of our new jobs go over seas because its cheaper, not because of new regulations.
Also my company appears to be positive on ObamaCare so far (at least according to the releases we are getting in advance of our 2012 Benefits sign up period).
If the government puts people to work, don't these new employees create demand, or these types of subsidized employees would not be expected to collect into any type of snowball?
Quote from: carltonplace on October 11, 2011, 02:16:54 PM
My company doesnt hire Americans. All of our new jobs go over seas because its cheaper, not because of new regulations.
Also my company appears to be positive on ObamaCare so far (at least according to the releases we are getting in advance of our 2012 Benefits sign up period).
If the government puts people to work, don't these new employees create demand, or these types of subsidized employees would not be expected to collect into any type of snowball?
But what are some of the reasons it's more expensive to employ people here, aside from payroll taxes, OSHA and EPA regs, legal tort liability issues- like workplace discimination, disability discrimination versus overseas, and now the government makes it essentially a mandatory benefit to provide health insurance? Of course we do have a higher standard of living, but look at only a few things I put out there that necessarily make the American worker more expensive to your company beyond his or her net wage.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 02:25:30 PM
But what are some of the reasons it's more expensive to employ people here, aside from payroll taxes, OSHA and EPA regs, legal tort liability issues- like workplace discimination, disability discrimination versus overseas, and now the government makes it essentially a mandatory benefit to provide health insurance? Of course we do have a higher standard of living, but look at only a few things I put out there that necessarily make the American worker more expensive to your company beyond his or her net wage.
Its all about net wage. If they could hire highly trained technically savy people at below minimum wage in the US it might be a different story. Bottom line: you can hire three college educated employees in a developing country for the price of one in the US (and you get to skip out on employee taxes and benefits).
I've come to the conclusion we either need to implement equalization tariffs or stop deferring foreign-source income from taxation. (funny that my foreign source income is taxable even if I don't set foot in the US for a decade)
If you give people incentives to do something harmful, they're probably going to do it. And how can we complain? We told them to do it.
Quote from: carltonplace on October 11, 2011, 02:36:46 PM
Its all about net wage. If they could hire highly trained technically savy people at below minimum wage in the US it might be a different story. Bottom line: you can hire three college educated employees in a developing country for the price of one in the US (and you get to skip out on employee taxes and benefits).
Regulations do add to the cost of business as well.
We had an interesting conversation with one of our vendors who was in town yesterday. They are ramping up new production at their plant in North Carolina which now essentially does structural welding and sheet metal parts for their finished products, but not code pressure-vessel fabrication. For years, this company has manufactured their pressure vessels in their ASME code plant in Pennsylvania. They are investing the money in their NC facility to make it an ASME code shop now. The reason? Their Pennsylvania operations are union. North Carolina is not. He said he did an analysis on wages and attendant costs and said union wages weren't drastically higher than those of non-union workers performing like duties in non-union shops. He said the real cost is in administrative costs in things like additional personnel to deal with union issues.
I found that quite interesting. I always assumed it was because the wages were vastly higher than those of non-union workers, doesn't appear to be the case.
Take a look around, American unions are pricing themselves out of business. Either jobs are moving to right-to-work states or off-shore entirely.
Quote from: nathanm on October 11, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
I've come to the conclusion we either need to implement equalization tariffs or stop deferring foreign-source income from taxation. (funny that my foreign source income is taxable even if I don't set foot in the US for a decade)
If you give people incentives to do something harmful, they're probably going to do it. And how can we complain? We told them to do it.
I pretty much agree on the tariff point.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 11, 2011, 03:10:22 PM
Regulations do add to the cost of business as well.
We had an interesting conversation with one of our vendors who was in town yesterday. They are ramping up new production at their plant in North Carolina which now essentially does structural welding and sheet metal parts for their finished products, but not code pressure-vessel fabrication. For years, this company has manufactured their pressure vessels in their ASME code plant in Pennsylvania. They are investing the money in their NC facility to make it an ASME code shop now. The reason? Their Pennsylvania operations are union. North Carolina is not. He said he did an analysis on wages and attendant costs and said union wages weren't drastically higher than those of non-union workers performing like duties in non-union shops. He said the real cost is in administrative costs in things like additional personnel to deal with union issues.
I found that quite interesting. I always assumed it was because the wages were vastly higher than those of non-union workers, doesn't appear to be the case.
Take a look around, American unions are pricing themselves out of business. Either jobs are moving to right-to-work states or off-shore entirely.
I can't disagree that unions are out of touch with business realities.
Now that the jobs bill is off the table Democrats in the Senate can move on to more important issues. U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy says he's planning to introduce legislation to make it a federal crime for people to mislabel products as containing maple syrup.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 12, 2011, 10:25:57 AM
Now that the jobs bill is off the table Democrats in the Senate can move on to more important issues. U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy says he's planning to introduce legislation to make it a federal crime for people to mislabel products as containing maple syrup.
That will create jobs and help the economy I'm sure.
The interesting thing is that after Harry Reid refused to bring it up for a vote, and then finally conceded to the president's wishes, he spent the past few days trying to drum up support from republicans and his fellow democrats. He put his face in front of every camera and demanded that those rascally republicans were holding things up.
Based on the vote record from yesterday's vote, Mr. Reid was among the three Democrats that voted NAY. After all that, he went ahead and voted against it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160
It seems he did not want to be on the record for bad legislation any more than his Republican counterparts did.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 12, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
The interesting thing is that after Harry Reid refused to bring it up for a vote, and then finally conceded to the president's wishes, he spent the past few days trying to drum up support from republicans and his fellow democrats. He put his face in front of every camera and demanded that those rascally republicans were holding things up.
Based on the vote record from yesterday's vote, Mr. Reid was among the three Democrats that voted NAY. After all that, he went ahead and voted against it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160
It seems he did not want to be on the record for bad legislation any more than his Republican counterparts did.
Voting against it was a procedural tactic. According to the rules of the Senate, if Reid votes against it, he can then bring it up again for another vote.
There wasn't enough Republican support to invoke cloture (60 vote threshold), so the plan now seems to be to chop up the pieces and put them through one at a time.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 12, 2011, 11:03:41 AM
The interesting thing is that after Harry Reid refused to bring it up for a vote, and then finally conceded to the president's wishes, he spent the past few days trying to drum up support from republicans and his fellow democrats. He put his face in front of every camera and demanded that those rascally republicans were holding things up.
Based on the vote record from yesterday's vote, Mr. Reid was among the three Democrats that voted NAY. After all that, he went ahead and voted against it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00160
It seems he did not want to be on the record for bad legislation any more than his Republican counterparts did.
Man, you've got to read below the headlines.
Quote from: we vs us on October 12, 2011, 11:51:37 AM
Voting against it was a procedural tactic. According to the rules of the Senate, if Reid votes against it, he can then bring it up again for another vote.
There wasn't enough Republican support to invoke cloture (60 vote threshold), so the plan now seems to be to chop up the pieces and put them through one at a time.
You have it backwards. You are lecturing the wrong person.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the motion to proceed (the nuclear option), would allow the Senate to bring the bill up for a vote without debate. The Cloture vote ends debate on the bill. Once Cloture is invoked, you can avoid a filibuster which is what the Democrats and the President wanted to happen.
Since that was defeated, the motion to proceed carries and the bill will now be up for debate, which is what the Republicans wanted so that the crap can be scraped away and additional amendments can be added, or the bill can be split up into clean portions.
Reid voted against Cloture because he did not want to be on record for being the one to lead the nuclear option. He was being sly with his own party.
Quote from: Townsend on October 12, 2011, 11:54:02 AM
Man, you've got to read below the headlines.
His kids had to catch the bus
Another poll. This one likes the jobs bill.
It also shows an example of why people should learn something before mouthing off "I'm fer-it" or "I'm a'gin-it".
Americans, unlike the Senate, approve of Obama's jobs bill, poll says
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/americans-approve-obama-jobs-bill-unlike-senate-poll-192109731.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/americans-approve-obama-jobs-bill-unlike-senate-poll-192109731.html)
QuoteSenate Republicans Tuesday may have blocked President Obama's jobs bill, but a new poll suggests that's not what a majority of Americans want.
Nearly two-thirds of the respondents to a survey from NBC/Wall Street Journal voiced their approval when pollsters were told them the details of the president's "American Jobs Act"-- including that it would cut payroll taxes, fund new road construction, and extend unemployment benefits. NBC reports that 63 percent of respondents said they favored the bill, with just 32 percent opposing it.
But the numbers for the bill only spike when Americans learn about its provisions in some detail. When NBC pollsters asked for a simple up-or-down appraisal of the bill, minus any policy details, the same group of respondents expressed less than half the level of support that they later showed. "When asked simply if Congress should pass the legislation or not, 30 percent of respondents answer yes, while 22 percent say no; 44 percent have no opinion," according to NBC.
One element of the bill in particular enjoyed wide support--Obama's proposal to remove tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans. Sixty-four percent of respondents said it is a "good idea" to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Thirty-one percent said it was a bad idea.
The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points is set for release Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. ET.
On Tuesday evening, senate Republicans joined together to filibuster the president's jobs bill--denying efforts to begin formal debate on the legislation even though a majority of senators had already voted to advance the bill in a 50-49 vote.
The president first introduced the jobs bill in early September and has since been traveling across the country to make the case for his proposal.
Quote from: Townsend on October 13, 2011, 11:18:26 AM
Another poll. This one likes the jobs bill.
It also shows an example of why people should learn something before mouthing off "I'm fer-it" or "I'm a'gin-it".
Americans, unlike the Senate, approve of Obama's jobs bill, poll says
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/americans-approve-obama-jobs-bill-unlike-senate-poll-192109731.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/americans-approve-obama-jobs-bill-unlike-senate-poll-192109731.html)
Oh, but guess what, Townie? Since it's a NBC participated poll, you know it OBVIOUSLY has a liberal slant to it.
::)
Once you actually read the article, it turns out that 30% of respondents said Congress should pass the legislation, 22% said "no it shouldn't" and ... 44% have no opinion. The plurality of people have either given up caring or are too busy watching Entertainment Tonight to have a clue what this jobs legislation is even about.
If you actually read the bill, you learn that it contains the identical types of projects (almost carbon copy) from the original stimulus bill. All temporary, infrastructural, and public sector tasks. Nothing to encourage the private sector to expand. That is why Republicans and some democrats denied it. It is not legitimate. It is campaign promise 3.0, and the president knew it would not pass.
"The People" want real jobs, not green jobs or temporary government projects. They want the business down the street run by the businessman who lives in their town to hire them with the promise of a career making a product or supplying a service that is needed, valued, and has a future.
Edit:
. . .and let me add that to create private sector jobs is not rocket-science. Like a houseplant, they grow on their own without government help, you just have to give them with the right atmosphere to grow.
Affordable energy, plenty of room to grow without over-regulation, nutrients in the form access to resources and supply-lines without interference, and don't bogart the water.
Quote from: Hoss on October 13, 2011, 11:53:45 AM
Oh, but guess what, Townie? Since it's a NBC participated poll, you know it OBVIOUSLY has a liberal slant to it.
There's not much sense in taking a poll you cannot predict to make your point. ;D
Be careful who you poll.
Quote from: Gaspar on October 13, 2011, 01:01:35 PM
Once you actually read the article,
You mean the part where they are told what is in the bill and they are in favor of it?
Using your words, actually read the article.
QuoteBut the numbers for the bill only spike when Americans learn about its provisions in some detail.
Quote from: Townsend on October 13, 2011, 02:15:29 PM
You mean the part where they are told what is in the bill and they are in favor of it?
Using your words, actually read the article.
I think I'm going to pass out of not-surprised.
Quote from: Hoss on October 13, 2011, 03:38:27 PM
I think I'm going to pass out of not-surprised.
Corky had better reading comprehension.
Quote from: Townsend on October 13, 2011, 03:46:10 PM
Corky had better reading comprehension.
It's not so much that as selective reading. My ex-wife used to say I had selective hearing. I guess that's why she's my ex-wife. LOL.
Obama Now Attempting To Get Each Word Of Jobs Bill Passed Individually
QuoteWASHINGTON—Following two months of frustrated efforts to push his American Jobs Act through Congress, President Obama announced Monday he was now attempting to have each word of the bill passed individually.
"This is a truly vital piece of legislation that needs to be approved in a bipartisan manner as swiftly as possible, and if that means passing it one single linguistic element at a time, then so be it," the president told reporters, claiming he and Republican lawmakers had already agreed on several synonyms that could be substituted for various controversial modifiers. "We just had a major breakthrough with the third appearance of the word 'it' earlier today, and we all were surprised to find common ground on 'that.' But I must caution Americans that we still have hundreds of key multisyllabic words to get through."
At press time, Congress was reported to be hopelessly deadlocked on the word "taxes."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-now-attempting-to-get-each-word-of-jobs-bill,26570/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-now-attempting-to-get-each-word-of-jobs-bill,26570/)
Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2011, 02:11:29 PM
Obama Now Attempting To Get Each Word Of Jobs Bill Passed Individually
After he gets the words approved, he will want to rearrange the words "as required".
;D
Teabaggers/GOP have mottoed up!
Crazy....
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 07, 2011, 03:02:30 PM
Teabaggers/GOP have mottoed up!
Crazy....
He probably could have cut that diatribe in half if he'd wait to puff up until AFTER his broadcast. FWIW, though not our official motto until the '50's IGWT has appeared on US coins since the mid 1860's.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 03:37:16 PM
He probably could have cut that diatribe in half if he'd wait to puff up until AFTER his broadcast. FWIW, though not our official motto until the '50's IGWT has appeared on US coins since the mid 1860's.
He's an Air America Refugee, you know, like this guy who's now a Senator:
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/al_franken_bunny_web.jpg)
Quote from: dbacks fan on November 07, 2011, 03:53:18 PM
He's an Air America Refugee, you know, like this guy who's now a Senator:
Well, he fits in well with all the rest of the clowns. Hard to differentiate him out of the crowd, actually.
But at least Franken is funny ha-ha, to boot, unlike the other clowns who are just clowns without the funny. Humor has it's own intrinsic value.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 07, 2011, 04:11:57 PM
Well, he fits in well with all the rest of the clowns. Hard to differentiate him out of the crowd, actually.
But at least Franken is funny ha-ha, to boot, unlike the other clowns who are just clowns without the funny. Humor has it's own intrinsic value.
I find Franken to be really droll and not all that hilarious.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 04:13:49 PM
I find Franken to be really droll and not all that hilarious.
Droll is funny.
He hasn't had much funny going lately, but then look where he is.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 07, 2011, 04:19:26 PM
Droll is funny.
He hasn't had much funny going lately, but then look where he is.
Yes, sucking a steady paycheck and benefits off the taxpayers.
QuoteHe probably could have cut that diatribe in half if he'd wait to puff up until AFTER his broadcast. FWIW, though not our official motto until the '50's IGWT has appeared on US coins since the mid 1860's. DUH!
You missed the story?
Franken's being a good boy....for now.
Wait til Kissinger dies off...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 04:25:22 PM
Yes, sucking a steady paycheck and benefits off the taxpayers.
Bitter, party of one.
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 07, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
You missed the story?
Was there a story in that caricature?
The one thing I'm getting tired of hearing is how not passing the jobs bill is preventing the hiring of police officers. I call BS on that one.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/10/23/20111023arizona-police-hiring-officers.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/10/23/20111023arizona-police-hiring-officers.html)
Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 04:25:22 PM
Yes, sucking a steady paycheck and benefits off the taxpayers.
And Inhofe has been doing what since 1968??
Goes back again to one of those relative degree things. If Franken is 'bad', then Inhofe must be Satanic Evil incarnate come to planet Earth in the human form of the Anti-Christ.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2011, 10:34:42 AM
Inhofe must be Satanic Evil incarnate come to planet Earth in the human form of the Anti-Christ.
If I had a nickle...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2011, 10:34:42 AM
If Franken is 'bad', then Inhofe must be Satanic Evil incarnate come to planet Earth in the human form of the Anti-Christ.
Your bias is showing.
I believe it is entirely possible to dislike Inhofe and dislike Franken even more.
Quote from: Townsend on November 08, 2011, 10:37:25 AM
If I had a nickle...
...for every lie Inhofe has told and every dirty trick he has played and every betrayal of the people he is elected to represent, then I could retire - 14 years ago.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2011, 10:40:20 AM
...for every lie Inhofe has told and every dirty trick he has played and every betrayal of the people he is elected to represent, then I could retire - 14 years ago.
That could be pretty much any politician.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2011, 10:40:04 AM
Your bias is showing.
I believe it is entirely possible to dislike Inhofe and dislike Franken even more.
Bias? Against Inhofe? Just reality.
I like Coburn, who is about as 180 degree opposite Inhofe as a politician can get. Biased in the other direction - in favor.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2011, 10:41:34 AM
That could be pretty much any politician.
By definition.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 08, 2011, 10:42:17 AM
Bias? Against Inhofe? Just reality.
I know how you feel. I held Jim Jones in pretty much the same regard as you do Inhofe. I wasn't too fond of Synar either.
I did vote for David Boren for Senate at least one time without regrets.
Jobs bill for vets bogs down in senatehttp://bigstory.ap.org/article/jobs-bill-vets-bogs-down-senate (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jobs-bill-vets-bogs-down-senate)
QuoteWASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has blocked legislation that would have established a $1 billion jobs program putting veterans back to work tending to the country's federal lands and bolstering local police and fire departments.
Republicans say the spending violates limits that Congress agreed to last year. Democrats fell two votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to waive the objection.
Supporters loosely modeled their proposal after the Civilian Conservation Corps used during the Great Depression to employ people planting trees, building parks and constructing dams
Democrats turned to the legislation shortly before they'll adjourn for the finals weeks of this year's election campaigns.
Republicans say the effort to help veterans is noble, but the bill is flawed.
Amazing how we can't even get a band aid past the Republicans.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 12:11:37 PM
Amazing how we can't even get a band aid past the Republicans.
Nervous it'll help the President in the election maybe.
Quote from: Townsend on September 19, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
Nervous it'll help the President in the election maybe.
Must be. This would add .06% to the deficit, which would still be smaller than last fiscal year, presuming forecasts hold. And that's assuming the money paid to these veterans would evaporate into thin air.
Quote
Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma said the federal government already has six job-training programs for veterans and there is no way to know how well they are working.
...Democratic officials did not have an estimate for how many veterans would be hired as a result of the legislation. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said much would depend upon the number of applicants. She noted that more than 720,000 veterans are unemployed across the nation, including 220,000 veterans who have served since Sept. 11. She said putting veterans back to work was the cost of war.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jobs-bill-vets-bogs-down-senate
"We really don't know how many vets this would have put to work, if any. We just want to be able to say: 'Lookie what these evil Republicans did to try and screw the vets over
only $1 billion.'"
Coburn is right on one point, we have a lot of duplicity in our government which seems to go un-noticed.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 02:25:03 PM
"We really don't know how many vets this would have put to work, if any. We just want to be able to say: 'Lookie what these evil Republicans did to try and screw the vets over only $1 billion.'"
If it doesn't put anybody to work it doesn't cost anything. Other than what it costs to print some forms and put up a website, anyway. I don't have figures at hand, but I seem to remember reading a few months back that unemployment among veterans is much higher than average.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 02:57:15 PM
If it doesn't put anybody to work it doesn't cost anything. Other than what it costs to print some forms and put up a website, anyway. I don't have figures at hand, but I seem to remember reading a few months back that unemployment among veterans is much higher than average.
And to put together a new bureau to administer this and to put together an oversight bureau... it's the incremental bureaucratic creep, it's never as simple as printing forms and putting up a new web site.
Unemployment is higher amongst women and blacks than vets, IIRC. We've already got six programs for Vet employment according to Sen Coburn. Why not focus on other groups if we have multiple programs in place to help the vets?
This bill was about nothing more than good campaign soundbites: "When Senator Blowhard had a chance to help our veterans, he turned his back on them!"
To be clear, I am not parsing blame. But it is funny that when Republican's block some legislation it is just assumed that it is Republican's being obstructionist. The truth is it is a big freaking game of gotcha and both sides are playing for keeps.
Quote from: erfalf on September 19, 2012, 03:45:44 PM
To be clear, I am not parsing blame. But it is funny that when Republican's block some legislation it is just assumed that it is Republican's being obstructionist. The truth is it is a big freaking game of gotcha and both sides are playing for keeps.
Legislating seems to be far less about advancing Americans than it seems to be about attaining and retaining power. Personally, I'd like to put about 537 people in Washington DC on the unemployment line.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
And to put together a new bureau to administer this and to put together an oversight bureau... it's the incremental bureaucratic creep, it's never as simple as printing forms and putting up a new web site.
It is if you're not creating a new agency.
Quote
Unemployment is higher amongst women and blacks than vets, IIRC. We've already got six programs for Vet employment according to Sen Coburn. Why not focus on other groups if we have multiple programs in place to help the vets?
Because the Republicans are even more likely to block that legislation? You wanted it distilled, it was distilled.
Quote
This bill was about nothing more than good campaign soundbites: "When Senator Blowhard had a chance to help our veterans, he turned his back on them!"
The quality of the soundbite is no indication as to the quality of the idea or the quality of the legislation attempting to implement that idea. They are all separate things. Some monumentally stupid ideas make great soundbites, some great idea make stupid sounding soundbites. The only real correlation is that monumentally stupid ideas tend to make for stupid legislation. Sadly, you can't depend on the inverse being true.
Quote from: nathanm on September 19, 2012, 04:02:02 PM
The quality of the soundbite is no indication as to the quality of the idea or the quality of the legislation attempting to implement that idea. They are all separate things. Some monumentally stupid ideas make great soundbites, some great idea make stupid sounding soundbites. The only real correlation is that monumentally stupid ideas tend to make for stupid legislation. Sadly, you can't depend on the inverse being true.
JFC, my head is spinning. Do you talk like that at home? Poor SWMBO! :P
I just read the bill. It's a good bill, until you get to the last provision. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112mOP1kg:e1015:
It repeals Subtitle J of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that provides funding for offshore ultradeepwater oil and gas research and production.
Why? Hell if I know!
Just another attempt to pound a nail in domestic energy production and cloak it in a bill with the word "Veterans" and "JOBS" in the title.
I'm so sick of this senate.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 19, 2012, 04:26:49 PM
It repeals Subtitle J of title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that provides funding for offshore ultradeepwater oil and gas research and production.
Why? Hell if I know!
I'm so sick of this senate.
Probably because oil and gas companies can afford to pay for their own research and production.
You spelled "house" wrong.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 19, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
Poor SWMBO! :P
Huh, I guess that's why she's been out of town 27 weeks so far this year. :P
Quote from: Gaspar on September 19, 2012, 04:26:49 PM
Just another attempt to pound a nail in domestic energy production and cloak it in a bill with the word "Veterans" and "JOBS" in the title.
And yet, in spite of ALL the spewing by the Murdochians, domestic oil and gas production continues to increase. Amazing!!
And natural gas is projected to become a net export in just a few more years (around 2020).
Guess maybe they are actually producing a small increase in the areas already open to production?? In spite of Obama being in office....