Obama Jobs Bill

[Embar Angylwrath]

Is it a campaign tool or not?

Hard to take it serious when it only had one Dem sponsor in the House until just recently, when Pelosi and Hoyer had to step and and sign on as co-sponsors. Hard to take it serious when Reid wouldn't even allow it on the floor for a vote until he pushed the taxes to the upper scale of income earners.

I think Obama knew it stood no chance, even with his own party. He wants to use it as a focal point so he can run against Congress.

[Lurker]

You are so boring and predictable.

(OMG Ad hom!!)

Obama proposes legislation that leading economists say will create jobs and boost the economy at a critical time when the recovery is in question.

The Republican leadership in the House announce the bill dead on arrival.

Every Republican in the Senate votes against the bill. Only two Democrats vote against it.

There hasn't been a single credible alternative proposal from the Republicans on job creation or boosting the economy since they took over the House because it would interfere with their strategy to sabotage the recovery for political gain. And the rumored legislation Senate Republicans might propose would be guaranteed to explode the deficit and do nothing to boost job creation.

And in the face of that, Embar attacks... Obama.

Boring. Predictable.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Why didn't it get more Dem support in the House? There wasn't exactly a mad rush to co-sponsor the legislation on the Dem side, was there? You side-stepped that one, care to answer it now? The Reps were calling for a vote on the bill in the Senate long before Reid did so.

Actually, what the Reps said, and continue to say, is there are elements in there they could support. There is some common ground in there. And my understanding of the economists opinion of the jobs plan is that its weak-sauce. I don't think spending almost half a billion dollars to drive down unemployment by 0.2 percent and add only about 290,000 jobs over two years is considered a success.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64602.html

The median estimate in the survey of 34 economists shows that Obama’s legislation would likely increase gross domestic product by 0.6 percent and add or keep 275,000 jobs next year. In 2013, his plan would add 13,000 jobs, bringing the total over two years to 288,000 jobs created.

The economists also told Bloomberg that Obama’s plan would lower the unemployment rate by 0.2 percentage points

I think the truer and more accurate statement is that economists are mixed on the issue, as noted by that right wing rag, NPR.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/09/140337286 ... a-job-plan

[Lurker]

Why didn't it get more Dem support in the House? There wasn't exactly a mad rush to co-sponsor the legislation on the Dem side, was there? You side-stepped that one, care to answer it now? The Reps were calling for a vote on the bill in the Senate long before Reid did so.

Probably because the Republican leadership announced the bill dead on arrival.

And my understanding of the economists opinion of the jobs plan is that its weak-sauce. I don't think spending almost half a billion dollars to drive down unemployment by 0.2 percent and add only about 290,000 jobs over two years is considered a success.

The Bloomberg article, titled "Obama Jobs Plan Prevents 2012 Recession in Survey of Economists", shows the "median" estimates. So if Moody's says the legislation would create 1 million jobs, and J. Hummer says it'll only create 150k jobs... well, you get the idea. Does J. Hummer do as thorough a job as Moody's. No idea.

From the NPR article, one of the two negative opinions contains a provable lie. "James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group" said that extending unemployment benefits "hasn't stimulated the economy". That's simply not true on any level. It's a talking point.

Contrast that with Mark Zandi, talking about what Moody's found when they actually analyzed the legislation.

[Zandi] projects the Obama plan would add 2 percentage points to economic growth in 2012, add nearly 2 million jobs and reduce the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point. "There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that's been supported by both Democrats and Republicans," Zandi said.

So... we've got a demonstrable lie from the Heritage Foundation vs. analysis by Moodys. Economists are mixed!

[Harlowe]

He's never wondering what the Republicans are doing. Just Obama. Every post it's ....WHAT TERRIBLE THING IS OBAMA DOING NAO.

zzz

[Lurker]

Embar couldn't care less what the Republicans do as long as they a) push for lower taxes on top earners, and b) continue to do whatever it takes to win elections so they can push for even lower taxes on top earners. The deficit, the economy, the environment... everything else is irrelevant next to his precious.

gop-embar.jpg

Either that or Embar's just a complete moron.

The Teapublicans continue to propose legislation that would increase the deficit far more than anything Obama has proposed and would create far fewer jobs while doing almost nothing to stimulate the economy, and Embar keeps attacking Obama.

[Ddrak]

Obama's jobs bill had two goals. The first and most direct one was legislation that would have created a bunch of jobs (economists are mostly positive looking at the NPR article quoted), and I think Obama really does believe that. The second was to trap the GOP between raising taxes on the wealthy and creating a bunch of jobs - then see which way they jump. It was lose/lose for them and if the Dems can actually hold the party story line then it will result in significant political gains for them.

The silliness in the Senate by Reid was just political manipulation so the bill could be brought back to the floor again later. Nothing to read into that - while the GOP was playing obstructionist there's no sense in bringing it as dead legislation.

The idea of "passing parts of the bill" is just stupid. That's what got the US into the debt problem in the first place - passing spending bills without passing the unpopular funding side.

Dd

[Lurker]

The only way to pay for the jobs bill without blunting or negating its impact is to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations. Polling shows the funding side of this bill is extremely popular and enjoys support from over 65% of the population.

The fact is the Republicans will never allow a meaningful jobs bill to pass. First of all, it isn't in their interest politically to help the economy, and secondly, most of the caucus from the leadership down is so ignorant about economics they actually believe their own propaganda that deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will cause explosive economic growth.

Obama proposed legislation that is paid for in the only way possible and contains ideas from both parties at a critical time in our faltering recovery. Leading economists say it will create jobs and prevent a new recession. Republicans block the legislation. The House leadership has brought nothing to the floor to help the economy despite being in control for nearly a year. Senate Republicans offer up an absurd plan that's basically a Teapublican wish list that would drastically increase the deficit while doing nothing for job creation.

And in the face of that, ignorant Teapublican dupes attack Obama and accuse him of political posturing. It's quite amazing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

So you cherry pick the economist that gives the rosiest picture.... nice.

It looks like economists can't agree on just what the jobs act will do. Will it be a great thing? Or just weak stimulus. Theres no consensus.

On a related note, Obama came out recently and instructed his staff to move administratively on elements of the Act that don't need Congressional approval. My only question... if he thinks he can move adminstratively to add jobs, why in the hell wait until now? Why not do that MONTHS ago?

[Lurker]

So you cherry pick the economist that gives the rosiest picture.... nice.

So you give equal weight to an economic company doing an analysis of what the legsilation will do, and a demonstrable lie by a partisan... nice.

[Minute]

He's never wondering what the Republicans are doing. Just Obama. Every post it's ....WHAT TERRIBLE THING IS OBAMA DOING NAO.

zzz

^-- This. These threads & responses almost seem scripted.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ge-on-jobs

So much for the blame being laid exclusively at the Reps feet....

[Lurker]

Every single Republican and two Democrats voted against Obama's legislation; legislation that scored well with the CBO and leading economic forcasting firms and was completely paid for. But the blame isn't exclusively with the Republicans. Uh huh.

The Republican alternative attracted ten Democratic votes.

Can you describe what was in the Republican alternative? How did it score with the CBO or any other impartial agency?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Don't know if it was even scored. But I did note it got more votes than Obama's plan...

[Lurker]

No, Obama's plan got the same number of votes. 57 yes I believe.

What the article says is that the alternative offered by the Republicans (which wasn't scored, and you don't know or care what's in it) got more votes than the Democratic alternative.

edit: I think I'm wrong on the number of votes Obama's plan got. But so what. A unified Republican opposition voted against it and were joined by 2 Democrats. The Republican alternative hasn't been scored, and Embar doesn't seem to care what's in it.

But Republicans somehow aren't to blame for any of this. Amazing.

Final edit. Vote on Obama legislation was 51-48 to pass the legislation, with Reid switching to a no vote for procedural reasons bringing the total to 50-49, not enough to break the Republican filibuster.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Conversley it can be said that the Democrats weren't unified in the support for Obama's plan. Pretty sure that's a correct statement. And I can tell you that the tax increases that are part of his plan are the reasons why most of those Democrats voted against it. And the $60 billion infrastructure bill is headed for the same fate. It has a tax increase in it, and we all know those are DOA. Hell, the bill is just a re-hash of last years defeated bill, which got little traction on the Dem side of the aisle and didn't include a tax increase. So this one is just for theater.

On the Republican plan, I understand some of the Dems supporting it, especially those in very vulnerable seats. But Franken? Have no clue why he voted for the Republican bill.

Side issue.. does the board auout log-off people now? Seems if I have the board up on a browser, if Im away from it working on other things, I come back and have to re-log in. Anyone having that issue but me?

[Lurker]

Conversley it can be said that the Democrats weren't unified in the support for Obama's plan. Pretty sure that's a correct statement.

Only two Democrats voted against Obama's bill when it came up for a vote. Ten Democrats voted against the Democratic alternative that Obama supported after Republican's filibustered the original bill.

Anyways...

Can you tell us what is in the Republican alternative legislation? How did it score when looked at by independent agencies? How would it affect the economy, the deficit, or jobs?

Those questions matter.

When Obama proposes legislation that independent agencies say will result in more jobs and a lower the deficit, and the Republicans offer an alternative that hasn't even been scored (most likely because it isn't paid for and wouldn't do anything for jobs or the economy), you can't make the claims you are making about both parties blocking a jobs bill. Even you can't be that superficial.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I've already answered your scoring question.

Can you tell me why the number of Dems voting for the Rep bill is greater than the number of Dems that voted against Obama's plan? Can you explain Franken's vote? (seriously, can you? I can't.)

[Ddrak]

I've already explained how voting in lockstep isn't a sign of strength but a serious weakness of party behavior, so this is showing up the GOP as the weaker party.

Not sure why you're saying the tax increases for the rich are the sticking points - they've been polling very well (especially in the Democratic core, but also in swing voters) and opposing them is actually going to cost the GOP votes. I can pretty much guarantee that the tax increase for the rich are not the reason the Dems are voting against the bill, especially if they're in marginal seats - they probably don't think it goes far enough or something.

Can't speak for Lurker, but I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with the number of Dems voting for the Rep bill vs the number of Dems voting against Obama's? That tells me those Dems probably believe doing something is better than nothing and are free to vote against the party line if they choose.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I've already explained how voting in lockstep isn't a sign of strength but a serious weakness of party behavior, so this is showing up the GOP as the weaker party.

Not sure why you're saying the tax increases for the rich are the sticking points - they've been polling very well (especially in the Democratic core, but also in swing voters) and opposing them is actually going to cost the GOP votes. I can pretty much guarantee that the tax increase for the rich are not the reason the Dems are voting against the bill, especially if they're in marginal seats - they probably don't think it goes far enough or something.

Can't speak for Lurker, but I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at with the number of Dems voting for the Rep bill vs the number of Dems voting against Obama's? That tells me those Dems probably believe doing something is better than nothing and are free to vote against the party line if they choose.

Dd

For a weak party, they sure are driving the message and momentum in Washington.

The ax increases are the issue to the Republicans, who will slam the door shut on anything the has a whiff of a tax increase in it. I wasn't talking about polling numbers. If Obama really wants to put the Reps on the hotseat, he'll try to push a bill that has no tax increase in it at all, or any other type of revenue enhancer. Then dare the Reps to oppose it.

What the voting number of the Dems says is that some Dems are in too much of a vulnerable position in their election campaings to vote for a measure that has a tax increase in it. The Reps know this and will exploit the political opportunity. Who knows, they may even get an alternative bill passed this way if they can chip away enough Dems. They are clearly closer to that goal than the Dems are to chipping away a few Reps.