world

Obama blasts Republicans for blocking jobs bill

52 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

“And if they vote ‘no’ on that, they’ll have to tell you why,” he said.

Because it's what you call "Stimulus-II" nothing to do with jobs...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The fact is that Obama couldn't get his own party to vote for his plan because it is clear that it is going to flush more money down the tubes with nothing to show for it. He didn't need a single Republican vote - the bill failed to pass the Senate because of Democrat votes against it.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

In the past decade the rich have gotten richer and corporations have paid less taxes percentage wise. The Republican jobs plan is to reduce taxes on the wealthy and taxes and regulations on corporations and pray that will spur hiring. So basically some of you condone spending money on them rather than Pres. Obama's plan to spend on the middle class. The Bush tax cuts were extended because not doing so was called a "job killer", how has that translated into jobs so far?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The wealthy still foot over 85 percent of the tax bill of the United States. Why do they need to pay more? Why is it that it is ALWAYS higher taxes and NEVER less Government spending?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Its pretty clear the GOP just does not care about us

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"The wealthy still foot over 85 percent of the tax bill of the United States"

Doesn't matter if it's 85% or 99%. If the wealthy continue to .prosper while the rest fall behind the country will stagnate. This is coming from someone who worked in business/ finance. In the long term , a healthy middle class is the best thing that can happen to wealthy people. They own the majority of stocks and businesses and will benefit from that.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Its pretty clear the GOP just does not care about us

An article appeared in the WSJ online by James Freeman about his meeting with Dem billionaire Mort Zuckerman. Zuckerman's main point was that Obama is not really concerned about building a consensus but getting his own way. Zuckerman was quoted as saying: "Barack Obama doesn't seem to care for individuals, elaborates Mr. Zuckerman, though the president enjoys addressing millions of them on television."

Zuckerman is a big supporter of Obama and even he realizes that a compromise needs to be made, and that the business community is "pleading for some kind of adult supervision" in Washington and "desperate for strong leadership." Writing soon after the historic downgrade of U.S. Treasury debt by Standard & Poor's, he wrote, "I long for a triple-A president to run a triple-A country."

Mr. Zuckerman supports raising taxes on the rich but says such a proposal cannot be taken seriously unless it's paired with other measures to grow the economy and restrain deficit spending. He also wonders why, if the president wanted to get a plan enacted, he didn't begin with private bipartisan discussions with House and Senate leaders, instead of another address to a joint session of Congress.

The only solution Mr. Zuckerman sees now to juice the economy "is to broaden the tax base and simplify and lower tax rates. To me that will be as close to revenue-neutral as you're going to have so it isn't going to be seen as a budget buster." He views GOP candidate Herman Cain's "9-9-9 plan" as a "little bit simple-minded," but he says that a reform that closes loopholes and reduces compliance costs will stimulate both business and consumer spending.

Things must be getting bad for Obama is a huge supporter like Zuckerman is having doubts on his ability. I really expect sometime next year that the Dems will put another person to run to challenge Obama. They have to or if they don't they may win the presidency, but loose the Senate and a lot more of the state houses around the country.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

suzu1 - Democrats have 53 senators; 51 voted for the bill. That's a majority, but in the "democracy" that is the Senate, 60 votes are needed to prevent a filibuster.

Alphaape, good try attempting to portray Obama as uncompromising. Remember his attempts during the debt ceiling "crisis" to form a grand compromise with Boehner and the Republicans? That plan resembled closely what Zuckerman proposes. You might remember who walked away from that: it wasn't Obama. The Republican Party is so adamant at not dealing with Obama that they have been actually rejecting Obama proposals that they supported when a Republican was president.

Oh, and Cain's 999 plan is not just "a little bit simple-minded;" it is flat-out crazy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The point is that taxing ANYONE at a higher rate these days is pure insanity. It only drives down the market. You people who are looking for "equality through taxation: have it all wrong. The US Government should be cutting payroll, pensions, and unneeded services, starting with senatorial and congressional payrolls and pensions.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Oh, and Cain's 999 plan is not just "a little bit simple-minded;" it is flat-out crazy.

@Laguna: Please tell me how it is crazy? The point many people who oppose any type of plan that Cain has presented is that it makes everyone pay taxes. Roughly 50% of Americans pay no taxes. They may file but get refunds. Under a flat tax or Cain plan everyone pays. I can tell you from my own case, if I were to only pay 9% of my income in Federal taxes, I would save at least $6,500, and I am no where near being one of the "rich elites." What these types of plans do is make everyone have some skin in the game. Sure you will loose those tax deductions like child credit, and intrest paid on a home mortage, but the reason those credits are there is because tax rates are too high for the regular people and they were there to help lower their tax rate. So you tell me, in order for me to pay lower taxes than I do know, I need to 1) buy a home and get the mortage interest deduction, 2) have more kids, just to save in taxes, while if they lowered taxes all around I would be better off.

After all, isn't the whole poing of the OWS is to make things fairer and equal. Everyone paying the same tax rate seems pretty even to me.

As for you point on Zuckerman, he himself is the one who I got the quotes for from my post. He even went so far as to say Obama needs to follow the path that Regan and Tip O'Neil used in trying to fix Social Security in the 80's. But Obama doesn't seem to want to do so. That's pretty damning coming from a guy who donates to him and for him to call it out.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Who would have guessed weepy old John Boehner could outmaneuver and embarrass this president so easily.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Alphaape, you might remember Bruce Bartlett, who worked with everyone from Reagan and George H.W. Bush to Jack Kemp and Ron Paul - in other words, his conservative pedigree is as shiny as they get. Here is what he has to say about the 999 plan:

At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.

You can read his analysis here: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/inside-the-cain-tax-plan/

Please let's not start with the canard of those lucky ducks who pay no taxes: They pay no Federal income taxes but pay plenty of everything else.

I also question your assertion that you would be better off under Cain's plan. Have you factored in the sales tax, which would be added to any state sales tax? - that would equate to a 17% tax in California. And most economists predict far less revenue under the plan, meaning public services would have to be slashed or fees raised in other areas.

No, the idea is as nutty as it comes.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I really expect sometime next year that the Dems will put another person to run to challenge Obama.

That notion is simply crazy.

Please tell me how [Cain's 9-9-9 plan] is crazy?

I don't believe anyone who thinks the Democrats will put up a challenger to their incumbent president "sometime next year" -- true craziness -- is going to understand why Cain's plan is nutso.

After all, isn't the whole poing of the OWS is to make things fairer and equal. Everyone paying the same tax rate seems pretty even to me.

LOL!! As my grandmother used to say, "When you're going to go crazy, go all the way."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh, and Cain's 999 plan is not just "a little bit simple-minded;" it is flat-out crazy.

"Simple-minded" is Zuckerman's way of being diplomatic. (It is destructively crazy and would take even more away from people who are already at the bottom end of the spectrum financially.)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

“And if they vote ‘no’ on that, they’ll have to tell you why,” he said.

Because it's what you call "Stimulus-II" nothing to do with jobs...

Exactly, nothing to do with jobs and all the same typical rhetoric that we constantly hear from this President. Blame the Republicans, this administration does not want to accept ANY and I mean, ANY responsibility for anything. How much more does this President want to tax everyone? As bad as this economy is, the only thing Obama talks about is hitting the top 3% to so called, "pay their fair share" but is doing absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy, that includes trying to increase jobs in the private sector. Even many Democrats are not to thrilled about this "jobs bill" and as Alphaape just said, almost 50% of Americans pay no taxes, I think Cain's 999 plan is worth giving a shot. The man has a least a strong resume as to how to get businesses and nearly bankrupt businesses off the ground, if it were implemented, it would be a start at least to stop the bleeding.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Obama's plan failed the first time. I am at loss why he try it again under a different name. Cain's plan.......

Former Treasury hands Gary and Aldona Robbins priced out the Cain plan on a static basis and discovered it to be revenue neutral. Essentially, they found a $26 trillion tax base yielding $2.3 trillion in revenue for a 9.1 percent overall rate. Hence, 9-9-9.

In essence, the Cain plan combines the flat tax (with its single marginal rate) and the fair tax (which uses the national sales tax). I don't know if this is really possible. But in terms of first principles, throwing out the tax code, lowering marginal tax rates, getting rid of the carve-outs and deductions that make the current code impossible to understand, and providing an economic-growth tonic to heal our current funk, it makes a lot of sense.

That Herman Cain is rising in the polls is no surprise.

Lawrence Kudlow's take on it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Cain is an idiot, no wonder he has the lead now with the republicans. A flat tax is a huge displacement of burden to the middle class from the rich, right out of the republican playbook since Reagan started the corporate welfare movement. 50 percent of US folks do not pay fed taxes, because they are poor. Duh. A sales tax would hit them hard. The rich pay less in taxes on a percent basis than the middle class. Thanks to Bush and Reagan. They are shorting the country to feed their own greed. And they are getting their way as their share of income and wealth goes up and up and up while the other 99 percent of americans go down and down and down.

Every idea the republicans throw out has been offered before and has failed. Giving more money to the rich does not create jobs or help the economy. It just makes the rich richer. But the rich donate to the republican party, that is why they get the tax breaks and huge bailouts. Republicans let the 99% just go down the tubes. Its socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of Americans. Cain is just a new voice to the same old failed ideas. Ideas that let to the 2008 collapse of the US economy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

But the rich donate to the republican party, that is why they get the tax breaks and huge bailouts.

zurc,

You do understand that Cain's plan throws out the current mess we call our Tax code. Throws all of it out and that includes all the tax breaks currently in it for the rich. Talk about a real game changer on how Washington currently works and how it would have to change the way it currently does business and in my opinion for the better. Lot's of lobbyists and special interests groups are going to have find a new line of work.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Former Treasury hands Gary and Aldona Robbins priced out the Cain plan on a static basis and discovered it to be revenue neutral. Essentially, they found a $26 trillion tax base yielding $2.3 trillion in revenue for a 9.1 percent overall rate. Hence, 9-9-9.

We've got thousands upon thousands of people protesting against "the 1%" and here comes Herman Cain with a plan which transfers more wealth from middle-class and poor Americans to the wealthiest ones. Mort Zuckerman called it correctly on this morning's McLaughlin Group, when he said it represents a 27% tax on payroll income. It means the end of Social Security, Disability and Medicare.

That Herman Cain is rising in the polls is no surprise.

You mean the same idiots who thought Trump and Bachmann really had what it takes? Then Perry? Yes, it's no surprise: many Americans are just that clueless.

Most Americans agree that the current tax code needs to be changed. But 999? That's insane.

Talk about a real game changer on how Washington currently works and how it would have to change the way it currently does business and in my opinion for the better.

The important question is whether the "game changer" makes better the lives of ordinary Americans. You are on the federal dole and have been for many years. I would expect that one of Cain's first loopholes would be to exempt military base stores and commissaries from the sales tax. So maybe you just don't care about slapping a 9% tax on the lowest income Americans, and forcing them to pay more (via a 9% sales) tax on the essentials they need to live. That is change for the better? Give me a break.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The important question is whether the "game changer" makes better the lives of ordinary Americans. You are on the federal dole and have been for many years. I would expect that one of Cain's first loopholes would be to exempt military base stores and commissaries from the sales tax. So maybe you just don't care about slapping a 9% tax on the lowest income Americans, and forcing them to pay more (via a 9% sales) tax on the essentials they need to live. That is change for the better? Give me a break.

Yabits,

Could you leave out the personal attacks......Thanks in advance.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Could you leave out the personal attacks......Thanks in advance.

Herman Cain and his 999 plan are an affront to the intelligence of any thinking person. The more a person has to struggle to make ends meet without the assurance of a government check arriving every two weeks or every month, the more the Cain plan penalizes them. I realize that some people hate our government institutions -- the same government that provides many of them with a paycheck -- to the extent that they don't care if millions of Americans are suffering.

Their answer: Tax the poor more and they'll struggle even harder. Tax the rich far less -- exempt their capital gains and their received millions from inheritances -- and, if they're paying 35% now, cut it to 9%. Take the rest out of the hides of those low-income Americans who currently are exempt from the income tax. Take away their Social Security, Disability and Survivors benefits, and their Medicare. And expect them to like it.

That's the Cain plan. It represents an attack on the lives on anyone making less than $60k a year. And that's many millions of lives. But some people are only worried about their own feelings as the truth of this awful plan is made plain. Shame on you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"the rich donate to the republican party"

But they never donate to the Democratic Party, right?

This deeply flawed "jobs" bill would have added even more to the U.S. gov't debt. The debt has to be cut, not added to.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yabits,

Actually it is the policies you advocate that keep millions mired in poverty for generations. And it also obvious you have not really looked into Cain's plan and are just repeating hyperbole.

Point one. The 9 percent national sales tax is not an add-on tax at all. It replaces all the hidden taxes already embedded in selling prices the commonly called "hidden taxes" that we all pay everyday. Here are some items that already jacked up by the federal govt. Want to buy a bicycle made in Chine and sold in the U.S your already paying a 11 percent import tax. Flashlight made in the Canada your paying 18 percent, how about a broom? 32 percent. Cain's plan replaces the current tax code entirely. Also as a Liberal this is about as close as you can get to that darling of a Tax that Liberals love so much......A VAT tax something that been hawked around Liberal think tanks and looked at since the Clinton administration. Many Conservatives have major heartburn with this portion of his plan. I agree with it though for the simple fact that once you ring out all the hidden taxes and costs during production that we currently have in our current system and base all of production on a one time 9 percent rate, consumer prices will actually go down not up.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Two Democratic senators, facing tough reelection fights, joined Republicans in ensuring that Obama’s jobs bill would not reach the 60-vote supermajority needed to advance in the 100-seat Senate.

The only bipartisanship that President Obama has been able to achieve is in opposition to his second stimulus/union bailout bill. When the president had a filibuster proof majority in Congress he implemented an economic policy that has led to trillion dollar annual deficits and an economy based on structurally high unemployment, and a heavy dose of crony capitalism and anti-competitive regulations.

The Bush tax cuts were extended because not doing so was called a "job killer", how has that translated into jobs so far?

President Obama's stimulus bill that was not supposed to allow unemployment to rise about 8% but in fact it caused the rate to rise to over 10%. The Obama extension of tax cuts from the Bush administration brought unemployment back down to around 9%. It's not likely to help him get re-elected but at least some people have a job that they otherwise wouldn't have.

Its pretty clear the GOP just does not care about us

No, it's pretty clear that the GOP doesn't care about President Obama's re-distributionist economic ideology. President Obama's economic policies have failed, they will continue to fail, and in fact similar ideas used in the US in the past and in other countries have failed in nearly all cases.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama made himself an enemy to his opponents and expected them to agree to him? He knew this wasn't going to go through so I doubt his purpose was to get this bill passed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Actually it is the policies you advocate that keep millions mired in poverty for generations.

You fail to state what policy I have ever advocated that keeps millions in poverty. It certainly can't be Social Security -- which I do advocate, and which you are completely silent about w/regard to 999 -- because over 50 years has shown that the program has lifted millions upon millions of senior citizens above the poverty line.

Point one. The 9 percent national sales tax is not an add-on tax at all. It replaces all the hidden taxes already embedded in selling prices the commonly called "hidden taxes" that we all pay everyday.

One can see how phony this argument is when considering that less than 2% of all federal revenues some from the import taxes you described. It's actually closer to 1%. So all items and services that poor people must purchase will be subject to a 9% tax -- whether that item had an import tax on it or not. Secondly, the 11% tax on the bicycle was not applied to the final price, but to the price paid to the Chinese manufacturer -- which is relatively dirt cheap.

Which would you rather pay: 11% of an import value of $40 or 9% of a final sales price of $190? It's the difference between $4.40 and over $17. How is a poor person, or any person, making out under that deal? Especially when their income -- which has not been subject to income tax -- now has 9% being taken out of that as well?

consumer prices will actually go down not up.

Well, if they do, it will only be because there will be far less disposable income in the hands of people. It's called deflation. You really want that?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Alphaape - An article appeared in the WSJ online by James Freeman about his meeting with Dem billionaire Mort Zuckerman. Zuckerman's main point was that Obama is not really concerned about building a consensus but getting his own way......

I think Zuckerman sums up Obama's Presidency pretty well. Obama keeps complaining that "those" guys won't do what I tell them to do. Don't they know the Obama is always right.

While the Obama administration had control of both houses, the progressive Democrats continually refused to allow Republicans into their closed door sessions until the ground rules of the bills had already been established. The taxpaying voters rejected those efforts and un-elected more than 60 Democrat Senators, Congressmen and Govenors. But that wasn't Obama's fault either. Nothing is ever Obama's fault, after all, he's only the leader.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The president is showing political savvy by bashing the republicans on this. It's a popular bill with the people. Make them slit their own throats politically by opposing it. People want jobs and the republicans are going to have to explain to the people why they said no to a jobs bill when they have nothing to offer.

Their lack of concern for the American people is becoming ever more apparent with every bill they block. The people are fed up, their taking to the streets and their are going to let the republicans have it in 2012.

Taka

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Arrestpaul is absolutely correct. Nothing savvy at all about this President. "3 years" the President and the Dems controlled all 3 branches of government, green light all the way and what do they have to show for it? NOTHING. The Republicans were so marginalized and neutered, they couldn't have stopped a freight train and yet, this President time and time again, either blamed Bush, the Arab Spring, the Tsunami in Japan and anything and everything else, but his failed policies. Obama is never wrong, the buck stops with him. @Taka, Obama is the one that doesn't care. Look at the African-American community, Blacks are economically worse off then they have ever been under this President. The unemployment rate for Blacks is 16.7% the highest since 1984. Black men are around 19.1% and Black women 14.5% So how is Obama's so called "spreading the wealth around doing?" You don't see any disparities? Obama is the one with the lack of concern with interfering in the private sector focusing primarily only on green jobs and propping up faulty companies like Solyndra that amounted to nothing, forcing this jobs bill (aka stimulus 2) borrowing and borrowing from China looking that much weaker in their eyes. Yes, the people are fed up, but with all their frustrations and despair, most of these people don't really understand or grasp politics instead of taking their frustrations out on Wall st. They need to take action with this WH and this President that has done nothing but put us into a crisis that we will not be able to get out of anytime soon. If anyone is going to get it. The Dems are on the ropes and as this unemployment keeps on rising and Obama wanting to increase taxes in a recession to make matters worse and still wanting to implement Obamacare, this is nut-crunch time and the country is on a downward spiral to the abyss. No sitting President has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.4% Liberals are just straight up bad for the economy, historically and generally speaking. It really all boils down to this fundamentally: both parties will never see eye to eye. Conservatives want less spending and small government less intrusion in the job market and lower taxes, more personal wealth. Liberals want to expand government, tax as much as they can, whenever they can on anyone or anything they can and spend, spend as much as they can. You have to choose which one you support, bottom-line. Which side do you fall on, because both sides are committed to their ideology and they will NOT come together. Obama will not work with the Repubs or compromise even just a little. Repubs don't want to help him, not even a little because they want him out of office so badly. Obama is not Reagan. At least Reagan tried to reach across the aisle to work with both sides and he did it well, Clinton wasn't that bad either in hindsight, but Obama, NEVER!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"The people are fed up..."

They were fed up in 2010 when they gave the House back to the Republicans and cut the Democrats' comfortable majority in the Senate to a razor-thin majority.

"... and ( they ) are going to let the republicans have it in 2012"

What, the White House? Nah, Obama has a lock on that, I mean who is his main challenger going to be? Romney? Pfft! Cain? Pfft! Perry? Pfft! The unemployment rate could go up to 20% and Obama would still win re-election. He has that much charisma.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No sitting President has ever been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.4%

LOL!! Really? FDR was re-elected three times with unemployment rates well above 7.4% in 1936 and 1940.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I mean who is his main challenger going to be? Romney? Pfft! Cain? Pfft! Perry? Pfft!

I think the Republicans have found their candidate: Pfft for 2012.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think the Democrats have found their candidate for 2012 - Barack Obama, lol.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Cain is an idiot, no wonder he has the lead now with the republicans

Before Cain appeared I see from past posts that the author of the above sentence had declared Republicans would never support an African American. It is not Cain who is an idiot...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well the republicans have finally come out with a plan for jobs for Americans! I'm so proud of them. Little eric cantor did it all by himself. "The House Republican Plan for American Job Creators." That's it world, the republicans have come to save the day with a jobs plan that is 7 pages long...WITH PICTURES!

In their defiense, it doesn't take a lot of space to type, " Step 1: Tax cuts for the rich. Step 2: Deregulation of industry.

That's their plan. The same plan that george bush tried and got himself declared worst president ever with, the republicans are going to double-down on.

This would be funny if I were from another country. These clowns have no concern for the American people. None at all. That they still have sheep following them is beyond me.

Taka

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Little eric cantor did it all by himself. "The House Republican Plan for American Job Creators."

John Boner and Eric Cadaver -- the grave-diggers of the U.S. economy.

Before Cain appeared I see from past posts that the author of the above sentence had declared Republicans would never support an African American.

Well, I will stand on record by saying that I'm delighted to the see the Republicans rallying around a man whose idiocy transcends his blackness -- making him truly ONE with them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

LOL!! Really? FDR was re-elected three times with unemployment rates well above 7.4% in 1936 and 1940.

You right, my bad, what I meant to say, after that, no President has been re-elected with that high of an unemployment. Also times were different. As I said before, this President is the downfall of the nation, he gets a second term, that's the absolute end of the U.S. as we know it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Taka313 - The president is showing political savvy by bashing the republicans on this. It's a popular bill with the people. Make them slit their own throats politically by opposing it. People want jobs and the republicans are going to have to explain to the people why they said no to a jobs bill when they have nothing to offer.

Their lack of concern for the American people is becoming ever more apparent with every bill they block. The people are fed up, their taking to the streets and their are going to let the republicans have it in 2012.

The progressive Obama administration is showing it's increasing desperation to gather support for it's agenda. You seem to be under the impression that a bill that creates jobs must have the word "job" in the title. The public demonstrated how "popular" the Democrat agenda was when they booted out the progressive hopey changey representatives en masse. Nothing has changed. The Obama administration still can not create jobs, exit Gitmo, solve illegal immigration issues, or get fellow Democrats elected to office or keep them there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There will always be poor among us. One feels sorry for them, but there it is.

Obama had 2 years of an absolute majority in both houses of congress to put together an economic agenda, and failed. Failed to close Gitmo. Failed to exit Iraq, Increased troop levels in Afghanistan. Increased drone and missile attacks exponentially. Sounds like Bush 3 to me...

Barack is a smart man, no doubt. But he is very poor at politics, and is not a leader. He never had to be in his past, and has been trying to learn on the job. Hasn't worked.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

no President has been re-elected with that high of an unemployment.

Much depends upon what the president inherited, and how much people believe the conditions are a result of his leadership or lack thereof. FDR inherited the Great Depression, as Obama has inherited its second coming.

Obama had 2 years of an absolute majority in both houses of congress to put together an economic agenda,

You left out the fact that Obama helped save the U.S. auto industry and, in so doing, saved over a million and a half jobs as a result.

As I said before, this President is the downfall of the nation, he gets a second term, that's the absolute end of the U.S. as we know it.

The end of the U.S. that emerged out of the late 1940s may end up being a very good thing. But Obama did not have much to do with that, just as the underlying forces that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't have much to do with Gorbachev.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And really, in regards to President Obama, hasn't he passed the most important test of all?

Hasn't he kept us safe from terrorists?

For years, I heard that was the most important function of the president was to protect us from terrorists.

Under President Obama, there have been no major terror attacks on America.

There was a time when one was considered a success.

Funny how the criteria for success changes.

Taka

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul,

Perhaps you could show me a bill, ONE SINGLE BILL, sitting there on Capital Hill... from the republicans that will create jobs.

I say there isn't one. You're going to have to prove me wrong. If I am, I'll admit it. I wear big boy pants. I can admit when I'm wrong.

But...just so you know, lowering taxes for the rich doesn't create jobs. That didn't work. SO....yeah, your quest is going to be PRETTY hard there camper.

Good luck and happy hunting. I'll be waiting.

Taka

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Taka313 - Perhaps you could show me a bill, ONE SINGLE BILL, sitting there on Capital Hill... from the republicans that will create jobs.

You'll have to first admit that a bill that creates jobs doesn't need to have the word "job" or "jobs" in the title.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

arrestpaul,

You'll have to first admit that a bill that creates jobs doesn't need to have the word "job" or "jobs" in the title.

As long as you can prove that it's a republican bill and it's in place to create jobs, I'm good. It need not have "jobs" in the title.

BUT...it has to really create jobs too. Not create favorable circumstances for "job creators." We tried that. They created wealth for themselves and no jobs for Americans. No, it has to actually create jobs.

I'll be waiting.

Taka

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Taka313 - As long as you can prove that it's a republican bill and it's in place to create jobs, I'm good. It need not have "jobs" in the title.

Define "Republican bill". Does that mean the sponsor must be a Republican or does a Republican cosponsorship qualify? Can a Democrat cosponsor the bill? Does a Democrat sponsor or cosponsor disqualify the bill from being considered a Republican bill?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

It's got to be a republican bill. Having Democratic co-sponsors or sponsors would make them bi-partisan in my opinion.

The president has put forth a plan. eric cantor put out a coloring book. I'm asking you if the republicans have a plan. McCain is sponsoring another round of tax breaks for the rich too, so I wouldn't count that one as a jobs plan (even though it has jobs in the title).

I would just like to see a republican try to make a job opening other than that of President of the United States. We understand that's a job they want to fill, regardless that it's already filled.

I want to see them put an unemployed person to work. I don't get my way very often,

Taka

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Taka313 - It's got to be a republican bill. Having Democratic co-sponsors or sponsors would make them bi-partisan in my opinion.

Bi-partisan cooperation is the way the U.S. Congress is "supposed" to operate but whatever.

S.1087 IS

The Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You left out the fact that Obama helped save the U.S. auto industry and, in so doing, saved over a million and a half jobs as a result.

You left out the fact that your President also helped the unemployment rate in the nation to jump up to 9.1% helping or should I say, NOT helping Americans to find work.

The end of the U.S. that emerged out of the late 1940s may end up being a very good thing. But Obama did not have much to do with that, just as the underlying forces that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't have much to do with Gorbachev.

Of course, Obama had nothing to do with the plight of the country and the slow collapse of the U.S. The end of the U.S. declining since the 1940's is probably a good thing? All I can say to that is...Amazing. lol

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

arrestpaul,

Well...you found one. Good for you. Of course, it doesn't actually create any jobs, it just opens up an area previously closed for exploration due to environmental concerns.

So good for you. You found a few jobs....at the expense of the environment. I take my hat off to you. And what a good bill it is.

You guys just can't win for losing, can you?

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Taka313 - So good for you. You found a few jobs....at the expense of the environment. I take my hat off to you. And what a good bill it is.

I still remember Obama's 2009 Recovery dot gov website that claimed his administration created jobs in NON-EXISTENT Congressional districts. Oops.

How many jobs will Obama's new campaign speech job's bill create? Obama doesn't have a history of honesty when it comes to actually creating jobs, jobs, jobs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The defenders of the republican agenda of welfare of the rich, when they are not rich themselves, is nutty. Only 1% of the US population should attempt to defend the corrupt wealth transfer to the rich the republicans have engineered since Reagan. The rest of the folks echoing the party line are either getting paid to do so or are unable to connect the dots. Its sad really, advocating for your own poverty.

Regarding Cain, clearly he is an Uncle Tom type who has disowned his own heritage. During the civil rights protests at their peak Cain was in Atlanta. He did nothing to help his own people with a the struggle to get basic human rights such as whites had at that time. He did nothing as he felt no connection to the struggle. Its like Palin and feminism, she is a woman but if she could she would set back women's right decades. Uncle Tom says it all. Clarence Thomas is another example of the same type of sell out.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

zurcronium - Regarding Cain, clearly he is an Uncle Tom type who has disowned his own heritage. During the civil rights protests at their peak Cain was in Atlanta. He did nothing to help his own people with a the struggle to get basic human rights such as whites had at that time. He did nothing as he felt no connection to the struggle. Its like Palin and feminism, she is a woman but if she could she would set back women's right decades. Uncle Tom says it all. Clarence Thomas is another example of the same type of sell out.

You're talking about a time when the majority of Democrats in Congress were voting AGAINST civil rights laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites