Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Democrat Gov suggests suspending electionsFollow

#52 Sep 30 2011 at 10:24 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
The Bill has been introduced. Reid claims it won't be debated or voted on until the China currency deal is moved forward.

This pundit has an interesting take on Reid's strategy...

Ed Morrissey wrote:
And that’s what is so fascinating about Reid’s priorities in scheduling the bills. If Reid thought the jobs bill would help Brown, Stabenow, and Casey, he’d trip over the Senate carpeting to get AJA on the floor. By pushing his China currency bill ahead of the AJA, Reid is not just conceding that Obama’s bill won’t pass, but that it’s not going to help Democrats whether it passes or not. He’s almost certainly right, as Republicans would love to tie a proposal to spend another $450 billion in borrowed money — borrowed at least in part from China, the very nation Reid wants to punish — on the same kind of gimmicky, short-term government interventions that Obama wasted on Porkulus in 2009.


Of course that's assuming the politicians are playing politics rather than law-makers wanting to make good policy.

Could be Reid just happens to think that it's important to tackle the Chine currency issue and the job's bill gives him leverage to get it rolling.

Meh, who knows.

If Obama has his way, he'll convince enough of us little people that the jobs bill needs to pass and that attempts to squash it or delay it are simply them childish politicians that won't play nice, again. I think Barry has a chance - he's a cunnin' one. Smiley: wink
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#53 Sep 30 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Elinda wrote:
If Obama has his way, he'll convince enough of us little people that the jobs bill needs to pass and that attempts to squash it or delay it are simply them childish politicians that won't play nice, again. I think Barry has a chance - he's a cunnin' one. Smiley: wink

My opinion on the subject is well documented, but it bears repeating: this latest stimulus jobs bill is campaigning disguised as governing, and surely Obama's hope is that it won't pass, which will then allow him to shift blame on the GOP for the lack of economic growth.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#54 Sep 30 2011 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Demea wrote:
this latest stimulus jobs bill is campaigning disguised as governing


Maybe it's my cynical side talking, but I see very little difference between those two anymore.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#55 Sep 30 2011 at 10:45 AM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
this latest stimulus jobs bill is campaigning disguised as governing


Maybe it's my cynical side talking, but I see very little difference between those two anymore.

Yeah, they should suspend elections until they get their work done.

J/k.

...or was I??
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#56 Sep 30 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Demea wrote:
this latest stimulus jobs bill is campaigning disguised as governing


Maybe it's my cynical side talking, but I see very little difference between those two anymore.

Yeah, they should suspend elections until they get their work done.

J/k.

...or was I??


Smiley: yikes

You don't care about liberty and freedom do you?

Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#57 Sep 30 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
The Bill has been introduced.

GREAT! Can you give me a link to the bill on the U. S. Senate site or a Senate File number so I can look it up?
#58 Sep 30 2011 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.1549:
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#59 Sep 30 2011 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The Bill has been introduced.

GREAT! Can you give me a link to the bill on the U. S. Senate site or a Senate File number so I can look it up?

What do I get in return?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#60 Sep 30 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The Bill has been introduced.

GREAT! Can you give me a link to the bill on the U. S. Senate site or a Senate File number so I can look it up?

What do I get in return?

My thanks, as I was under the impression it hadn't even been submitted yet. But since you couldn't be bothered to link the Bob damned thing, and I had to get it from Twizzle's Nizzle, all you get is a big, fat f'uck you.
#61 Sep 30 2011 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Less TL;DR version

JOBS COMPONENTS


Payroll tax rollback. Hiring credit extension.

Extends the unemployment program. EUC (emergency unemployment compensation) changes. deducts from those funds the amount gained in wages paid via subsidized programs.

Various subprograms of the unemployment package extended.

Establishes the Pathways Back to Work Fund; subsidized employment to unemployed, low-income youth/adults

Makes it an unlawful practice for certain employers or employment agencies to: advertise they discriminate, or to discriminate against the unemployed. ($1000/day fine + court costs)

SUBSIDIES


US Manufacturing subsidy, with an interesting caveat forcing slanted competition with international vendors.

Repeals some oil subsidization.

GRANTS


Allocates Teacher/Police/Firefighter rehire funds, as well as some school construction

Some Air/Rail transit grants, for high speed rail, air traffic control etc.

Abandoned property redevelopment grants.

Establishes the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) as a wholly-owned government corporation to make direct loans and loan guarantees to facilitate transportation, water, or energy infrastructure projects. Requires infrastructure projects assisted under this Act to have costs that are reasonably anticipated to equal or exceed $100 million ($25 million for rural infrastructure projects).

TAX/INVESTMENT CODES


Increases coverage for fraudulent small biz investment. Some tax exempt bonds are now also exempt from the AMT (Uh, wasn't the point of the AMT not to get bogged down with exemptions, subsidies and credits?)

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to set forth requirements relating to short-time compensation programs to allow employers to reduce the workweek of their employees in lieu of layoffs. Allows an increased work opportunity tax credit for long-term unemployed individuals


Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) limit tax deductions and other tax exclusions for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 for married taxpayers filing a joint return), (2) treat income received by a partner from an investment services partnership interest as ordinary income for income tax purposes, and (3) treat all general aviation aircraft (including corporate jets) as seven-year property for depreciation purposes.


Quote:
Denies the foreign tax credit for amounts paid or accrued by a dual capacity taxpayer to a foreign country or U.S. possession. Defines "dual capacity taxpayer" as a person who is subject to a levy of a foreign country or U.S. possession and who receives a specific economic benefit from such country or possession. Sets forth a special rule for the treatment of taxes paid on foreign oil and gas income for purposes of the foreign tax credit.


Fixes some personal tax evasion techniques. Doesn't touch corp ones.

MISC


Handles reallocation costs for telecom differently, as well as allows the FCC to sell new spectrum permit classes, and collect fees on those, exempting public safety broadcasters. misc other telecom changes.

Quote:
Amends the Budget Control Act of 2011 to: (1) increase the deficit reduction target of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction from $1.5 trillion to $1.95 trillion, and (2) provide that the revenue enhancement provisions of this Act will not take effect if a Committee bill achieving greater than $1.65 trillion in deficit reduction is enacted by January 15, 2012.

Amends the Budget Control Act of 2011 to increase the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction's targeted deficit reduction goal from $1.5 trillion to $1.95 trillion or more over FY2012-FY2021.

States that if a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater than $1.65 trillion in deficit reduction (as provided for in the Act) is enacted by January 15, 2012, then the amendments to the Internal Revenue Code made by subtitles A through E of title IV of this Act, shall not be in effect for any taxable year.


Tacks on more the budget commitee, but makes the poison pills not trigger if it doesn't fully cover this legislation

Edited, Sep 30th 2011 2:28pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#62 Sep 30 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Is it just me, or has the whole "blame the other side for filibustering" shifted from actually filibustering (ie: demanding cloture), to assuming filibuster any time someone throws a hold on a bill, to tabling your own bill because you assume the other guy will hold it, which is assumed to be a filibuster? It just seems like the Dems have taken this whole dog and pony show to a ridiculous level. Isn't there a really simple way to get around a filibuster? Write legislation that the other party agrees with?


What happened to "reaching across the aisle" and "bridging the partisan gap"? It looks to me like the Dems have realized that their ideas aren't working, aren't willing for ideological reasons to come up with new ones, and are now just playing political gotcha games in the hopes they can still manage to pin some kind of blame on the GOP.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Sep 30 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Is it just me, or has the whole "blame the other side for filibustering" shifted from actually filibustering (ie: demanding cloture), to assuming filibuster any time someone throws a hold on a bill, to tabling your own bill because you assume the other guy will hold it, which is assumed to be a filibuster?

Still not getting your news from anywhere, I see. Of course, given your previous quaint ideas about how filibusters work and who uses them, even a little knowledge would probably only prove dangerous to yourself.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Sep 30 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
You're like 5 onion layers of denial from reality Joph. How dare I point it out! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Sep 30 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Um, yeah. I'm not really willing to take your hand and lead you once again through remedial civics so maybe you can just use the search function Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Sep 30 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Um, yeah. I'm not really willing to take your hand and lead you once again through remedial civics so maybe you can just use the search function Smiley: smile


Ah... The remedial civics lesson where we learn that it's bad form to blame the other guy for opposing something if you don't actually put something on the table to be opposed? Or the part where we learn how to detect when a party has run out of ideas? Cause I always love that one!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#67 Sep 30 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Back on pseudo topic, what part(s) of the bill do you like/not like?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#68 Sep 30 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Back on pseudo topic, what part(s) of the bill do you like/not like?


The parts where it attempts to use government programs to create jobs, while foisting the cost onto the real job creators, thus making the current problems *worse* and not better. I don't feel like going point by point, and I'm sure there are a few minor parts of the bill which in principle and if implemented correct, might be good ideas, but when combined with the whole of the bill are no longer so.

It's not uncommon to put a poison pill into an otherwise good/necessary bill. But this one appears to be more like 90% poison and maybe 10% good/necessary. Which highlights the issue Moe was talking about. Even the Democrats aren't willing to pass this bill. There's just too much poison and not enough of what you normally hide the poison inside.


The fundamental problem is that government doesn't create jobs. Well, to be more correct, nearly all jobs it creates are a net negative macro-economically speaking. They cost more to create than they produce in economic terms. Spending money on government programs to do something is legitimate if and only if we always think in terms of that thing we are getting costing us something and are willing to pay that cost. What the Obama administration is doing is perpetuating a lie that if the program is "creating jobs", this somehow means that it doesn't cost us. Of course it does. And since it does, the net effect economically is negative.

It *cannot* be a solution to our sluggish economy. But for purely ideological reasons, most liberals cannot publicly support the actual solution (much less admit that more government doesn't make the economy stronger), so they're stuck continuing to push the same failed model, and the US public is stuck suffering for it. Most Dems are not stupid ideologues. They know this flaw in their own economic policy, but have to work around it. They know that if they actually pass this bill, it will hurt and not help the economy. So their objective is to make it look like this bill is the solution, let the GOP oppose it, then blame them for blocking the bill that would have saved the economy.


It's a lie. The Dems know it's a lie. And most of the public isn't going to buy the lie either. But they pretty much know it's their only chance at this point. If Obama were a more moderate liberal, they might be able to pivot as a party, cut their losses and come back down the line. But he's not. He's forced his party into a no-win situation. That's what this is really about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Oct 01 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Back on pseudo topic, what part(s) of the bill do you like/not like?


The parts where...

Sorry, gbaji, let the adults talk now. There's people who actually know how to read bills and cite what they don't agree with who are willing to talk, rather than mumble vaguely about ideals and poison pills and liberals.
#70 Oct 03 2011 at 2:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Politico wrote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that the Senate will take up President Barack Obama’s jobs bill later this month, even though it doesn’t have the votes to break a potential GOP filibuster.

The various provisions in Obama’s jobs package – such as a payroll tax cut and extra spending to repair road, bridges and schools – should be measures that should gain bipartisan support in Congress, Reid insisted in his floor remarks on Monday. He pointed fingers at Republicans for fostering legislative “obstructionism” that has prevented significant jobs measures from passing Congress.
The Hill wrote:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday declared President Obama’s $447 billion jobs package is dead, flatly rejecting Obama's plea for passage by the end of the month.

Cantor said the House would not bring up the president's American Jobs Act for a vote as a whole, but by the end of the month would move forward with elements supported by GOP leaders, including three pending trade agreements and a reduction in the withholding tax for businesses.

"Oh noes! The GOP is too scared to put the bill to a vote!!!~~ LOLOLROFL!OL!"

Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Oct 03 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Quote:
Cantor said the House would not bring up the president's American Jobs Act for a vote as a whole, but by the end of the month would move forward with elements supported by GOP leaders, including three pending trade agreements and a reduction in the withholding tax for businesses.

This shouldn't surprise anybody, as they've been saying this since Obama first pitched the bill in his speech early last month.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#72 Oct 03 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Due to sheer terror, no doubt. Isn't this the thread where we say everyone is scared if they don't put the floor on the floor immediately?

What's the point of crying about Democrats not having a bill for this and that if the GOP is too petrified to actually bring it to a vote?

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 4:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Oct 03 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Due to sheer terror, no doubt. Isn't this the thread where we say everyone is scared if they don't put the floor on the floor immediately?


It's not their bill Joph. You do get the difference between a party failing to put their own bill they just spent a huge amount of time (and a presidential speech before a joint session of congress) hyping on the floor and the other party being more interested in putting their own version of the bill on the floor. Right?

Quote:
What's the point of crying about Democrats not having a bill for this and that if the GOP is too petrified to actually bring it to a vote?


Lol. Rhetoric much?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Oct 03 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
"Difference" not withstanding, you realize how stupid you sound crying about a bill not coming up in the Senate that will never come up in the House, right?

I do agree that the "But the Democrats never gave us a bill!" thing IS stock partisan rhetoric but, since you parrot it all the time, I thought you'd enjoy its familiarity Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Oct 03 2011 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Difference" not withstanding, you realize how stupid you sound crying about a bill not coming up in the Senate that will never come up in the House, right?


First off, I'm not "crying". Second: It's far far less stupid than the guy trying to make hay out of the fact that the GOP hasn't written and floored a bill proposed by the Dem President, while downplaying the fact that the Dem controlled Senate hasn't floored a bill either. In fact, I'll go farther: It's not stupid at all to do what I'm doing. The President of the United States and leader of the Democratic party proposed in a speech before a joint session of Congress a jobs bill and urged Congress to pass it, but his own party is dragging their feet to even introduce legislation.

I think it's quite reasonable to make a big deal when a presidents own party is hesitant to support his proposal, and not make a big deal out of the other party opposing said proposal. It's frankly bizarre that you not only attempt to treat these as though they are equivalent, but in a twist of mind-bending illogic seem to think that it's somehow more "wrong" for the GOP to oppose the Dem proposal than for the Dems themselves to do so.

Quote:
I do agree that the "But the Democrats never gave us a bill!" thing IS stock partisan rhetoric but, since you parrot it all the time, I thought you'd enjoy its familiarity Smiley: frown


Er? Um... Joph. It's not the GOPs proposal. You're seriously losing it or something here.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 4:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Oct 03 2011 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
First off, I'm not "crying".

Congratulations on the great acting job then?

Quote:
Second: It's far far less stupid than the guy trying to make hay out of the fact that the GOP hasn't written and floored a bill proposed by the Dem President [...] his own party is dragging their feet to even introduce legislation.

You do realize that the GOP wasn't expected to write the bill, right? They were given an already written piece of legislation to vote on? Weeks ago? Exactly the sort of thing they cried and cried about before? "Oh, why oh why won't the Democrats give us a bill?!"

Huh. Actually, I'm guessing you didn't realize that at all. Still not getting your news from anywhere. Well, maybe you'll find another nice radio-man to tell you exactly what to think since your vaunted "independent thought" just failed you so epically here.

Quote:
Quote:
I do agree that the "But the Democrats never gave us a bill!" thing IS stock partisan rhetoric but, since you parrot it all the time, I thought you'd enjoy its familiarity Smiley: frown
Er? Um... Joph. It's not the GOPs proposal. You're seriously losing it or something here.

Thanks for being obvious? Why would you cry so much about the GOP not giving the GOP a bill?

Quote:
It's frankly bizarre that you not only attempt to treat these as though they are equivalent, but in a twist of mind-bending illogic seem to think that it's somehow more "wrong" for the GOP to oppose the Dem proposal than for the Dems themselves to do so.

Of course I never said that but what you lack in basic information, you've always made up for in strawmen. I was laughing at you 'tards who wanted to say that Reid not flooring a bill that he knew wouldn't pass a GOP filibuster anyway was a Real Big Deal while the House Majority Leader says in uncertain terms that he will never, ever allow the bill to come up. So it's supposedly a Real Big Deal and really meaningful to not waste time watching the GOP filibuster a bill that the House will never floor anyway. Apparently, this was too sophisticated for you so you had to fall back to your usual prattle.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 7:40pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 728 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (728)