• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans block Obama jobs bill

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frolicking Dinosaurs

200M yrs of experience
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
1,692
Location
Southeastern USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Republicans in the US Senate have blocked President Barack Obama's jobs bill in a procedural vote.

Forty-six Republican senators joined with two Democrats to filibuster the $447bn (£287bn) bill.


Democratic support for the bill wavered this week, as several Democrats said they would vote for moving the bill forward, but against the bill itself.


Republicans opposed the measure over its spending to stimulate the economy and its tax rise on millionaires.
The president has spent several weeks promoting the jobs bill in a campaign-style tour across the US, where the unemployment rate is jammed at 9.1%.


The plan would have included $175bn in infrastructure spending and aid for local governments to avoid layoffs, as well as Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses.


Reacting to the vote, Mr Obama said: "Tonight's vote is by no means the end of this fight."
BBC News - Republicans block Obama jobs bill
 
LMFAO....only 50 lib senators voted for BO's Porkulus II
 
BillClintonFingerPointingHead.jpg


..............................
 
Democratic support for the bill wavered this week, as several Democrats said they would vote for moving the bill forward, but against the bill itself.

Yes, they voted yes because they knew the bill was going nowhere but if their vote had really counted towards passage they would have voted "no".
 
Once again conservatives in Congress demonstrate that they are a greater threat to the well being of the nation that bin Laden ever was.
 
I think it is more like 'Once again the GOP plays directly into the hands of the Dems in Congress.' There is ample proof the Dems didn't want this bill to come up for a vote and the GOP step up and took the blame - again.
 
This bill was DOA, and anyone with half a lick of political sense knows this. Hell, this bill couldn't get a co-sponsor, and Reid only put his name on it because Obama essentially forged it onto the bill.

You have to admit - Obama plays the pandering game better than any politician in recent memory. He may even convince some of the more dim-witted fools out there to muster up sympathy with a few lame cries of "Can you see what those evil Republicans are doing? They won't even pass this jobs bill!" to the ignorant masses.

Personally I find it hilarious. Democratic Congressmen are concerned about jobs, alright...their own. To sign this bill is to staple your name to ammunition come re-election time.
 
Once again conservatives in Congress demonstrate that they are a greater threat to the well being of the nation that bin Laden ever was.

So a democratic controlled Senate can't convince a few Reps to vote their way and its the Repubs fault. Maybe it is just a bad Bill. Guess for you it is good when the Dems vote party line, but bad when Repubs do.
Get over it. Both sides need to stop the political posturing.
 
So a democratic controlled Senate can't convince a few Reps to vote their way and its the Repubs fault. Maybe it is just a bad Bill. Guess for you it is good when the Dems vote party line, but bad when Repubs do.
Get over it. Both sides need to stop the political posturing.

Or maybe how the Republicans voted actually IS the Republicans' fault! :roll:

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Republicans would be quite happy to see a double-dip recession if it means beating Obama in '12.
 
Or maybe how the Republicans voted actually IS the Republicans' fault! :roll:

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Republicans would be quite happy to see a double-dip recession if it means beating Obama in '12.

If that were true, then they would step aside, and let the President and his lackeys continue to trash the economy with no opposition from them.
 
If that were true, then they would step aside, and let the President and his lackeys continue to trash the economy with no opposition from them.

If that were true they would block a jobs bill that economists say would significantly reduce unemployment and boost GDP, drastically reducing the chance of a double-dip recession next year.
 
If that were true they would block a jobs bill that economists say would significantly reduce unemployment and boost GDP, drastically reducing the chance of a double-dip recession next year.

Nobody says that.
 
Once again conservatives in Congress demonstrate that they are a greater threat to the well being of the nation that bin Laden ever was.

Shameful. Absolutely shameful.
 
Nobody says that.

The libs can always rely on a handful of failed keynesian economists to endorse any and all borrow and spend bills. adamt listed one source and this what they actually wrote...

Because these initiatives are planned to expire by the end of 2012 — except for the infrastructure spending, which has a longer tail — the GDP and employment effects are expected to be temporary.
•That is, these proposals will pull forward increases in GDP and employment, not permanently raise their level


So what they are saying is if the fed gov't borrows a bunch of money and spends it quickly, the GDP numbers will be artificially higher during the spending period. What these econtards don't factor into the equation is the drop in GDP in later periods when the higher taxes and debt service costs become a drain on the economy.

Porkulus II is dead. BO knew the bill wouldn't pass, he simply wanted a campaign slogan.
 

These are hacks. Not economists. Here we go.

BMO Nesbitt Burns: “Still, if the tax cut proposals are passed in Congress, and if at least half end up spurring demand, the plan would provide a decent boost to 2012 GDP growth. Instead of growing a modest 2.5 per cent, as we currently anticipate, the economy could grow 3.25 per cent, putting a more meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, which we believe will fall from 9.1 per cent currently to 8.5 per cent by the end of next year, in the absence of stimulus. Importantly, the tax cuts would meaningfully reduce recession odds, which are currently pegged at roughly one-in-three.”

This is the same arguement for the first stimulus that was going to lower unemployment but did the opposite. The arguement goes like this. "If this stimulus does all the things we predicted the first one would do but didn't, then we will get these results".
 
The libs can always rely on a handful of failed keynesian economists to endorse any and all borrow and spend bills. adamt listed one source and this what they actually wrote...

So what they are saying is if the fed gov't borrows a bunch of money and spends it quickly, the GDP numbers will be artificially higher during the spending period. What these econtards don't factor into the equation is the drop in GDP in later periods when the higher taxes and debt service costs become a drain on the economy.

Porkulus II is dead. BO knew the bill wouldn't pass, he simply wanted a campaign slogan.

It was indeed a presidential re-election bill.
 
These are hacks. Not economists. Here we go.

BMO Nesbitt Burns: “Still, if the tax cut proposals are passed in Congress, and if at least half end up spurring demand, the plan would provide a decent boost to 2012 GDP growth. Instead of growing a modest 2.5 per cent, as we currently anticipate, the economy could grow 3.25 per cent, putting a more meaningful dent in the unemployment rate, which we believe will fall from 9.1 per cent currently to 8.5 per cent by the end of next year, in the absence of stimulus. Importantly, the tax cuts would meaningfully reduce recession odds, which are currently pegged at roughly one-in-three.”



This is the same arguement for the first stimulus that was going to lower unemployment but did the opposite. The arguement goes like this. "If this stimulus does all the things we predicted the first one would do but didn't, then we will get these results".
Are you saying the $800 billion Porkulus I didn't keep unemployment well below 8%, as promised? :lamo

unemployment-rate-obama-stimulus.jpg
 
Once again conservatives in Congress demonstrate that they are a greater threat to the well being of the nation that bin Laden ever was.
Conservatives prove yet again they don't want the economy to improve while Obama is president.

What's bad for America is good for Conservatives.
 
At least we figured out the magic of it all. Obama should have named his original Stimulus Bill as the Jobs Bill, and then it would have really worked to fix everything, and we would have had two Recovery Summers by now. :roll:
 
Are you saying the $800 billion Porkulus I didn't keep unemployment well below 8%, as promised? :lamo
I wonder if you wouldn't mind quoting where that promise was made? Thanks in advance.
 
The frustrating part is it's likely this has been posted countless number of times.

Economist Christina Romer regrets saying jobless rate would stay below 8 percent
I asked to see where a promise was made, not where Romer regrets saying it.

I don't see a promise there ... What I do see Christina Romer saying in the report she published:



"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." ~ Christina Romer


That's not a promise ... that's an estimate.
 
I asked to see where a promise was made, not where Romer regrets saying it.

I don't see a promise there ... What I do see Christina Romer saying in the report she published:



"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." ~ Christina Romer


That's not a promise ... that's an estimate.

This is one of those conservative canards that just won't die no matter how many times you point out it's falsity -- like "Al Gore claims he invented the internet."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom