The Republican’s have filibustered Obama’s jobs bill. Big surprise.
Also not surprising is the fact that about two thirds of Americans support the jobs bill. In fact, according to Gallup, “Americans Favor Almost All Proposals in Obama's Jobs Plan”. And we’ve known that approximately the same percentage favors restoring previous tax rates on the top one percent.
In a nation that values and respects democracy, the politicians would have no doubt how to proceed.
But not here.
The entire Republican Party and a couple corporatist Quisling Dems, Nelson and Tester, have killed it.
Senator Harry Reid offers his keen insight.
“The president’s plan contains many ideas Republicans have consistently supported over the years, especially when their party controlled Congress, the White House or both. Republicans oppose those ideas now. . . . I guess Republicans think if the economy improves, it might help President Obama.”
If it has taken the Senate Majority Leader this long to “guess” the obvious truth, then the Democrats may as well capitulate to the Republicans’ one-party dictatorship. What’s that? They already have?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
Republicans have made it blatantly clear for years they're not in business to serve most of the public. They have constituent groups, patrons, they must serve without regard to others. Republicans know their ideology, policies and agenda don't play well with anywhere from a sizable majority of Americans to a very large minority of Americans, depending on the issue. That's why they need so much money and such a large, elaborate propaganda infrastructure. It's also why lying, outrageous dirty tricks, voter suppression and other underhandedness are standard operating procedure for them.
It's reasonable to believe that if Republicans were to forgo spending obscene sums on campaigns, go without their lying noise machine and skip the voter suppression and dirty tricks, running only by putting forth their ideology and agenda, they would be hard put to win more than a third of the seats in Congress and hold the White House 25 percent of the time.
(I expect the above will lead to responses of "Oh, but Democrats aren't pure as the driven snow, yada, yada." So to save some people a lot of trouble, I'll concede that point and say I don't expect all the members of any party to be choir boys and girls all the time. That said, there is no equivalence between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to honesty, fair play and trying at least for the most part to govern in the broad public interest. None.)
Thank God for these multi-million dollar bribes from corporations and wealthy individuals. Without them, politicians would have to actually listen to the lowly public and vote the way their constituents tell them.
BTW, are you guys familiar with this website? It's an online petition drive to create a constitutional amendment forbidding any financial contributions to politicians. It may be an uphill -- or even hopeless -- battle, but it's worth a try. It might help to bring this issue into the spotlight if enough people sign it.
You know, when you can't get Senator Jim Webb (huge democrat) to vote for it...
I mean really, nobody wanted to be part of Stimulus III which is what this "jobs bill" really was. After the public outrage over the first two, nobody was really all that pumped to put their name on the third iteration.
Right now, most Democrats are glad they never had to go on record either way on that piece of shit.
It's an online petition drive to create a constitutional amendment forbidding any financial contributions to politicians.
With something like this as law, the only people who could run for office would be the super rich; since only they could afford to campaign once conventional fund raising was taken away.
You'd lock regular people out of government (especially local government) even more than they are now.
If you don't like politicians who take big donations from corporations, um... don't vote for them. It's like a built in incentive that requires no action at all from The State - an action which government can use to twist to the elites advantage. The answer isn't more laws that at the end of the day will make those you hate stronger, the answer is for citizens to actually do their jobs as citizens. If they fail to do that, we deserve the government we get. After all, The People elected it.
SW,
The key failure of our democracy is people listen to what Republicans say and don't pay attention to what they do. If everyone voted, the GOP would be a permanent minority.
Tom,
Thanks for the link. Thoughtful Americans understand the changes required, but corporate media is doing their best to ignore and marginalize them.
I think news media should be required to air all political debates, and ads with only the candidate's voice, without charge as a condition for their license to use the public's broadcast spectrum.
That would remove the need for millions of dollars in contributions.
Free,
Once again you side with the corporatist pols and elites over the vast majority of Americans.
But You are correct here: the answer is for citizens to actually do their jobs as citizens. If they fail to do that, we deserve the government we get.
This is exactly why the Right is out to disenfranchise voters and deny their right to participate in democracy.
Tell me again why I should vote for republicans?
Jerry,
Because if you're a "real American" you'll trust them at their word...and FOX(R) will make you angry at dems and feel better for voting against your interests.
Couple of questions:
How many democrats voted against the bill?
How much money would the treasury dept get if ALL the money of the top 1% were taxed away from them?
After that, would be next, the next top 20% of earners? How much money would that bring in?
So far under my plan, we will take ever red cent from the top 21% earners in America, will that be enough?
If not how about the next 30% of the remaining earners? That would mean the money from the top 51% of American earners would be taxed 100%. Would that balance the budget, or cut the debt? If not, since we have taken all the money from the top 51%, where do we go next?
No one, absolutely no one, is talking about taxing millionaires at 100%. Your comment is meaningless.
They are talking about taxing them about 5% more. You know, if I am living on a net of $1,000,000 after taxes, I think I will survive pretty well on only $950,000.
Just The FOX(R),
As your hero said, "There you go again".
BTW, Do you still think the Occupy Wall Street folks are paid?
I bet you do.
Check this out.
Right-Wing Sites Succumb To Silly Occupy Wall Street Conspiracies
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/right-wing_site.php
Ok, Jerry, I'll use your numbers, just add 5% to the tax burden of the top 51% and how much will that bring in?
Will it fix the debt problem? Just asking. If not, what should be done then, increase the taxes on the next top 10% of earners? That would mean a 5% tax increase on the top 61% earners. Would that be enough?
And Dave,your question is meaningless until you answer mine. And as JG used to post, I don't go to links that I have to cut and paste, if you can't figure how to use hyperlinks, then your link is too stupid to waste my time on. That's what he said.
Don't change the discussion. This post is about the Jobs Bill. You know, the one that the republicans don't even what to discuss. The one that republicans don't even want to offer other suggestions. The one that republicans don't even want to bother to amend. The one that republicans said let's talk about something else. Jobs are not important.
You know, the one that a 5% tax on people earning over $1,000,000 per year will pay for.
Oh, but Democrats aren't pure as the driven snow...
yada, yada.
Jerry
The jobs increases taxes, how am I changing the subject?
So how much will the taxes be increased to pay for it, sounds like a part of the discussion. Explain why it is you think it isnt?
Make that the jobs bill "will" increase taxes.
One more thing Jerry, make sure next time you tell me to stay on the subject, take a look at Dave's, post. Wasn't a bit about the subject of the jobs/a.k.a tax increase bill. Was it.
What part of:
"The Republican’s have filibustered Obama’s jobs bill"
don't you understand?
Tell me again why I should vote for republicans?
Tell me again why I should vote for Democrats?
Fuck em' both, vote Libertarian.
Oh, and it wasn't a "jobs bill."
It was another TARP/ARRA Stimulus bill that gave a bunch of money to those "eeeeeeeevil cooorporaaations maaaaan" that you bitch constantly about.
No one in their right minds, to include most DEMOCRATS wanted to vote yes on another of those boondoggles. Right now the Left is quietly thanking the right for bailing them out of that mess.
Vote Libertarian...and be inconsequential. You might as well not vote.
Vote libertarian, to test the theory no situation is so bad it can't be made worse.
Jerry,
Get a grip on it, the corner stone to the "JOBS" bill was a tax increase. IOW, how else was it going to paid for?
"The Republican’s have filibustered Obama’s jobs bill" What part of this don't you understand?
A. It was a bill to increase taxes?
B. Dems. also filibustered bill?
With this Administration, failure is always an option.
Your choice.
Haha yeah because GWB and Obama have made things so swell lol.
Say what you will, but I stand by my former lack of comment.
Those goddam Republicans should be jailed for sedition in destroying our economy and opposing relief measures for needy people.
John,
Your lack of comment is practically indisputable.
Jack,
The Right has learned to first legalize their crimes.
Those goddam Republicans should be jailed for sedition in destroying our economy and opposing relief measures for needy people.
Rounding up the opposition and throwing them in prison. Typical reaction of a typical socialist when the collectivist model predictably fails. It's happened over and over throughout history. Why would you be any different.
BTW, I won't go quietly to your camp, thanks.
"Collectivist model" means we was a failed commanist state until the Tea Party saved us.
Yeah, unregulated capitalism never failed. Nope. Not in 1929. Not in September 2008. Nosiree. That was all cuza them socialists sucking the life outa Wall Street. Less regulation and more tax cuts will bring us even more magical "Trickle down" and jobs. Yup, yup. Works every time.
Say, ever wonder where all those jobs, jobs, jobs are that were promised by the tea brains tax cuts? Lowest taxes ever should mean millions and millions of jobs. You betcha.
Thank you Republican Senate and Congress for all your selfless dedication to working Americans. I'm having trouble deciding on which one of those great job offers pouring in. Yup yup. Gotta be true. Rush and Free say so.
Morning in America. Republicans and corpo-dems will fix it all again. Just like they did in 1929 and 2008.
Yeah, unregulated capitalism never failed.
Nothing is perfect. It has failed, usually because of government intervention. No Fannie Mae, no Freddie Mac would have meant no housing crash.
But what of socialism. Capitalism has indeed not been perfect. Sometimes it fails. Problem with Socialism is it's never succeeded. Go visit Greece to see how that turns out. Bunch of whiny babies with their hands out demanding more of other people's money. Oh wait, that's here too since this country went full socialist three years ago.
PS - what tax cuts? The inflation alone on the Obama stimulus and easing equates to the largest tax hike in American history.
Just like they did in 1929
Yup, with another world war and some concentration camps.
Yay dems.
Free,
Nothing is perfect.
This is your first and only truthful sentence. Very good.
It has failed,
You’d get another truth point here if the comma were a period. But you continued...
usually because of government intervention. No Fannie Mae, no Freddie Mac would have meant no housing crash
If you said de-regulaton instead of intervention you’d be right. Fannie and Freddie is the favorite straw man for the Right. Go back to Wall Street.
Capitalism has indeed not been perfect. Sometimes it fails.
I’ll give you two truth points for that.
Socialism never succeeded
Now you see, this is not at all correct. Let’s call FDR’s New Deal socialism. I’m sure you’d agree, right?
Good. Did it work? Yes, indeed.
Now let’s look at its success as measured by the unemployment rate.
Start with FDR inheriting nearly a quarter of Americans unemployed from the Republicans.
Every year of his first term, way before the war, unemployment went down.
In fact, unemployment went down in all but one of his years in office.
If we want jobs, it sounds like we need more socialism, not less.
Your “job creators” seem only interested in creating jobs in China.
"Every year of his first term, way before the war, unemployment went down."
So what did the unemployment do in his 2nd term? Way before the war?
Just The FOX(R),
Thank you for asking...again. I have given you this information before.
Unemployment was better than what the Republicans left him in every year of FDR's terms.
After Roosevelt developed jobs programs unemployment dropped every year of his first term. Employment improved throughout all his terms except for one year. Unemployment went up in 1938 when the Dems caved to GOP pressure. FDR shook off the party that accused him of being an “traitor to his class” and resumed programs that put America back to work.
Here are the BLS figures:
1932 – 23.6%
1933 – 24.9% FDR inherits peak GOP unemployment rate thanks to tax cuts and deregulation
1934 - 21.7%
1935 – 20.1%
1936 – 17%
1937- 14.3%
1938- 19% FDR caves to GOP
1939- 17.2 FDR continues programs
1940- 14.6%
1941- 9.9%
1942 – 4.7% US goes to war
FDR caves to GOP,, B.S. FDR caved to the economic fact that his programs were not working and he losing support within his own party. Plus there was the issue of the growing debt.
The rest of the world recovered faster than the USA during this world wide depression, want to see those facts as well?
Do I need to give FDR's Treasury Secy quote again to prove how much your claim is pure B.S?
Dave seems to think the crushing poverty of of 1939 was a Republican's fault the better part of a decade before. You know, just like the total collapse of our economy today is the fault of a party that has had no meaningful control of government since 2006.
Just can't come to grips with the Keynesian model failure. Meanwhile, all the Austrian School influenced economies are doing pretty well. Not to mention, the States using those models are doing a lot better than those that aren't.
But ah well, vote Obama and go the road of Greece. The riots are already starting here.
Just The FOX(R),
You and Free love to rewrite history. You really have a problem with FDR lowering unemployment every year but one, don't you? You have no facts, Mr, FOX(R). Unless you are suggesting Germany's path was the one to take us out of the depression faster. Sieg Heil.
Free,
You mean the "crushing poverty of 1939" that was better than 1938? Or do you mean the "cushing poverty" that was better in every year than when the Republicans dumped their mess on FDR?
When capitalism fails, it fails big. Do you think anyone can revive a de-regulated collapsed economy overnight? Especially now with a GOP locked senate and house? Ha.
We ain't seen nothin yet. Wait until the radical right takes over again. We will all miss their mere obstruction. Minority rule by the elites is the path to fascism.
no meaningful control of government since 2006 Due to the Dems taking the House?
So now you admit Obama has no meaningful control of government now that the GOP has the House. Good. We agree.
Now who's left to control government, besides Big Money?
Post a Comment