- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 2,166
- Reaction score
- 1,692
- Location
- Southeastern USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
BBC News - Republicans block Obama jobs billRepublicans 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."
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.
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 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.
Once again conservatives in Congress demonstrate that they are a greater threat to the well being of the nation that bin Laden ever was.
Nobody says that.
Nobody says that.
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
EVERYBODY who isn't a right wing talking head says that. Pull your head out.
Macroadvisers: American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment
Economists Score Obama's Jobs Bill - Seeking Alpha
PoliGraph: Obama jobs bill claim mostly true | Capitol View | Minnesota Public Radio
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.
Are you saying the $800 billion Porkulus I didn't keep unemployment well below 8%, as promised? :lamoThese 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
View attachment 67116708
Conservatives prove yet again they don't want the economy to improve while Obama is president.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 wonder if you wouldn't mind quoting where that promise was made? Thanks in advance.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.
I asked to see where a promise was made, not where Romer regrets saying it.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?