So you agree that we are not talking about attaching amendments but about creating jobs?
In short, by eliminating the tax it places more money in contractor's hands faster.
If so, then I've been talking about both.
1. "White House backs GOP jobs bill"
2. "Senate Republicans tried to pass a similar bill last week, but the administration opposed that version, arguing against the $30 billion in spending cuts the GOP attached to the measure."
Will eliminating the tax put more money in the hands of contractors and their employees? Yes, absolutely.
Will releasing this revenue allow contractors to hire more workers or purchase more equipment? Yes, absolutely.
But this isn't a jobs bill; it's simply a tax rule change and nothing more.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 10-29-11 at 07:49 PM.
You focus on the House GOP. Why is that? You DO realize that Obama is calling this a "jobs bill", as well, right? I haven't seen you say that Obama shouldn't be trying to pass this measure off as a jobs bill. Perhaps you can only bring yourself to criticize the GOP?
Anyway...be that as it may. Let's talk about your agreement that this bill will help increase hiring...but your refusal to call this a jobs bill. Sure, it's a tax rule change, but if the aim is to increase hiring then it IS a jobs bill. It doesn't have to have some fancy, jobs-relating name to be called a jobs bill, don't you think? Or DO you think it need a fancy name?
A rose is a rose, eh?