Republicans Propose Job Creation Bill

The Republicans have a jobs creation bill that makes sense; but BO won't sign on..........

the bill proposes:

- Repeal Dodd-Frank
- Repeal Obamacare
- Reduce Corporate Income Taxes
- Reduce Individual Income Taxes
- Balanced Budget Ammendment
- Other incentives

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1009633.html

Unlike the Democrats who think the government needs more income to create jobs; the Republican plan wants to create jobs through direct private investments; not crony capitalism that picks winners and losers (ala Solyandra).

Mr. President Pass This Bill Now !!!!!!!!!

reducing individual income taxes while at the same time eliminating deductions will only lower the Income taxes of people who don't have a mortgage. People are having a tough enough time now staying out of foreclosure and this would eliminate mortgage interest deductions Wouldn't it?

The Republicans have a jobs creation bill that makes sense; but BO won't sign on..........

the bill proposes:

- Repeal Dodd-Frank
- Repeal Obamacare
- Reduce Corporate Income Taxes
- Reduce Individual Income Taxes
- Balanced Budget Ammendment
- Other incentives

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1009633.html

Unlike the Democrats who think the government needs more income to create jobs; the Republican plan wants to create jobs through direct private investments; not crony capitalism that picks winners and losers (ala Solyandra).

Mr. President Pass This Bill Now !!!!!!!!! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Absolute insanity. Dodd-Frank, as weak as it is, is the best hope of preventing another financial melt down like the one we just had.

As for tax cuts, if tax cuts produced prosperity, we'd have more money that Carter has little liver pills. Federal taxation is at a sixty year low as a percentage of GDP.

A balanced budget is fine by me in times of property, but balancing the budget now will simply exacerbate the liquidity trap that we're in. When it's time to stimulate aggregate demand, cutting back spending from any source is foolish.

A balanced budget is fine by me in times of property, but balancing the budget now will simply exacerbate the liquidity trap that we're in. When it's time to stimulate aggregate demand, cutting back spending from any source is foolish. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

So you think continuing to print money backed by nothing and spending more money then we take in so that Big Government can to throw as much money into whatever programs and so called stimulates isn't foolish?

The idea that we can borrow our way out of dept is like an alcoholic trying to drink himself sober. It makes no sence and will never happen.

So you think continuing to print money backed by nothing and spending more money then we take in so that Big Government can to throw as much money into whatever programs and so called stimulates isn't foolish?

The idea that we can borrow our way out of dept is like an alcoholic trying to drink himself sober. It makes no sence and will never happen. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

It can, and has, work under certain conditions. Interest rates much be at or near the zero bound. The recession must be caused by a lack of demand. And it ceases to be effective when inflation hits. Of course the leading indicator of inflation in this context is interest rates. And right now, interest rates are quite low. Historically low, as a matter of fact. So the short answer is, absolutely, it works. Had it not worked, we would have been in a depression, not a recession. And the fact that the first stimulus is winding down is why the economy is stalling and likely headed for a double dip recession.

The idea that we can borrow our way out of dept is like an alcoholic trying to drink himself sober. It makes no sence and will never happen. Originally Posted by Texaspride74

How does that work out for sex? Fuck yourself out of the addiction, or deeper in? Sounds both good to me.
As for alcohol, yes I know alcoholics who drank so much that they don't touch the stuff anymore, Never!

As for jobs, no way Republicans will come up with a jobs bill that works, their only interest is a HIGH unemployment number and MORE people out of work. Because that is probably the only way they can get Obama out of office next year.

And we wonder why we have gridlock in the Government?
And we think that Republicans want to work with Democrats?

Like always, everyone is protecting their job, the people have NOTHING to say and are just game.

The Republicans have a jobs creation bill that makes sense; but BO won't sign on..........

the bill proposes:

- Repeal Dodd-Frank
- Repeal Obamacare
- Reduce Corporate Income Taxes
- Reduce Individual Income Taxes
- Balanced Budget Ammendment
- Other incentives

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1009633.html

Unlike the Democrats who think the government needs more income to create jobs; the Republican plan wants to create jobs through direct private investments; not crony capitalism that picks winners and losers (ala Solyandra).

Mr. President Pass This Bill Now !!!!!!!!! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What bill? This is a proposal from the senate minority. It has not made it out of the senate. It has not been discussed in the house. Yet according to you, the President won’t sign a bill that doesn’t exist.
You live to misrepresent facts in general.

This “bill” basically returns us to conditions that existed 2 years ago. You know, waiting for the tax cuts to create jobs. Add in a balance budget amendment that can’t work and the “jobs” bill is the same repackaged conservative mantra. That didn’t work before.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-18/republicans-pressing-for-a-balanced-budget-fail-to-deliver-details-on-how.html

Republicans Pushing Budget Balance Won’t Deliver Details on How


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272154/against-balanced-budget-amendment-rich-lowry

Against the Balanced-Budget Amendment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-worst-idea-in-washington/2011/03/10/AFzQaOIC_blog.html

The worst idea in Washington

Question: What President increased our debt more than all previous Presidents combined?
Answer: Our beloved conservative icon, Ronald Reagan. Reagan inherited $900 billion an debt and by the time he left office, we were $3 trillion in debt, increasing our debt by $2.1 trillion or about 233%. Since he increased our debt by a factor of 2.3, he truly increased our debt more than all previous Presidents combined. By the way, those $2.1 trillion in 1988 dollars are the equivalent of about $5 trillion in today's dollars.

I keep wondering why Conservatives today think he's a conservative icon. He would be a flaming Democrat by today's Republican/Conservative standards. Makes me wonder if people really inform themselves before repeating what they hear on Fox News.

If you knew anything about the Constitution and American History you would understand that all spending originates in the House of Representatives; during the eight Regan years the Democrats controlled the House, making Regan's budgets DOA....the Democrats created the defecits during the Regan years...


baseline.

[font=Arial] .

1753710]Question: What President increased our debt more than all previous Presidents combined?
Answer: Our beloved conservative icon, Ronald Reagan. Reagan inherited $900 billion an debt and by the time he left office, we were $3 trillion in debt, increasing our debt by $2.1 trillion or about 233%. Since he increased our debt by a factor of 2.3, he truly increased our debt more than all previous Presidents combined. By the way, those $2.1 trillion in 1988 dollars are the equivalent of about $5 trillion in today's dollars.

I keep wondering why Conservatives today think he's a conservative icon. He would be a flaming Democrat by today's Republican/Conservative standards. Makes me wonder if people really inform themselves before repeating what they hear on Fox News.
Originally Posted by thehobbydude;[/FONT

Actually I do know it's the House of Representatives but the President ultimately has to sign the bill. If he didn't like the budgets why didn't he veto those bills and send them back until he received something he could sign? Ultimately he signed them and became the Reagan budgets, just like Obama needs to own the current budget mess we're in. Just like GWB needs to own the budget mess he also created. The GOP had majority in Congress for the first 6 years of the Bush presidency and deficits were rampant and debt continued to grow. Regardless of who's elected in 2012 (I certainly hope the GOP takes the White House and majority in Congress) we're screwed. I bet you that at the end of 2016 debt will have accumulated and budgets won't be balanced even under a GOP congress and White House. We have 30 years of history of unchecked spending and debt accumulation by both parties. Now you tell me when all the GOP candidates promise cuts, why should we believe them? Because they really mean it this time? Because one day they woke up with a conscience? This is plain political exploitation by the GOP to get back in and continue to spend our money.

When was the last time Republicans came up with any bill that was actually good for the country? Reagan started the great transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1%. Thirty years later we are nearing mission accomplished.

Hell, even the big money investment banks are joining the call for stimulus spending.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/1...in-the-99.html

Only the lonely fools in the Republican Party are resisting the obvious need to stimulate demand.

There is only one job the Republicans are interested in. The one in the White House!

There's no way Republicans will come up with a jobs bill that works; their only interest is a HIGH unemployment number and MORE people out of work. Because that is probably the only way they can get Obama out of office next year.

The Republican "jobs bill" is no more a "jobs" bill than Obama's recently proposed plan.

The balanced-budget amendment is simply political gimmickry. In the first place, there's no way in hell it will pass. Even if it did pass, the federal budget is so fraught with phony accounting that no one would ever be likely to agree on what might constitute a "balanced budget." That would likely be decided by the courts. And what in the world would happen if we end up having to fight a justified war or respond to some other crisis? Would congress then have to go to the courts?

There's no way Republicans will come up with a jobs bill that works; their only interest is a HIGH unemployment number and MORE people out of work. Because that is probably the only way they can get Obama out of office next year. Originally Posted by trynagetlaid

Essentally true.

Politics has become a very nasty game. But the practice of political gimmickry is not unique to either party. Obama must have known that his "jobs bill" has no chance. A number of Senate Democrats oppose it. But it's probably good politics. He can blame Republicans for blocking it and substantially increase his re-election chances by running against their intransigence.

Dodd-Frank, as weak as it is, is the best hope of preventing another financial melt down like the one we just had. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Dodd-Frank actually does very little to prevent another financial crisis. It does virtually nothing about Fannie and Freddie or TBTF. In fact, the TBTF banks are even bigger than ever. It should come as no surprise that immediately after details of the bill were released, the stocks of all the biggest ones went up, since provisions of the bill were far more "big bank-friendly" than had been previously thought. In my opinion, about all the bill did was create a dangerous complacency. The probability of another crisis within the next year or two is very high.

Another big problem is that it imposes heavy compliance costs on smaller community banks, which will have a hard time competing against institutions that can spread those costs across much larger asset bases.

While we're at it, I think we ought to fix or get rid of Sarbox and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

Had it not worked, we would have been in a depression, not a recession. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If you believe that, you should take a look at when and how the money was actually spent, and the timeline of the inventory bounceback during the first half of 2009. Nothing in the way of sustained patterns of production were created by the stimulus spending, and virtually nothing else of any value at all. In my opinion, the opportunity was almost completely squandered and the net effect was that the ARRA is a net negative for the economy, since it produced little other than a lot of extra debt. It probably made the recession a little less bad in 2009 than it otherwise would have been -- after all, you can't pump out $860 billion and have it fail to produce some benefit somewhere. But I think that's about the happiest face you can put on it.

And the fact that the first stimulus is winding down is why the economy is stalling and likely headed for a double dip recession. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

If that's the case, then the whole idea was faulty in the first place.

The idea promoted by Romer, Summers, Goolsbee, and others was that the spending would "prime the pump", as they said in the old days, or "kick start" the economy, and that then the private sector would take over. It clearly did not work. If the economy depends on sustaining "stimulus" spending of such quantity as to produce endless deficits in the neighborhood of 9% of GDP, then we're in far more trouble than most people realize. (But then, I've long said that I think we are in far more trouble than most people think.)

Here's what I think is a very good explanation of why the stimulus package did not work:

http://www.thenation.com/article/163...ould-keynes-do

Tom Geoghegan is rather far to the left and I disagree with him on many things, but here he makes some very interesting points. You will see some very interesting food for thought. My essential point has long been that our economy faces some very serious structural issues, and that almost no one in the political arena is talking about them.

Instead, they're relying on what essentially amounts to the "faith-based" economics of large fiscal multipliers which do not work in the real world. We are trying to build an economic expansion built on a foundation of sand, which is exactly what we were doing for most of the '00s.

Hell, even the big money investment banks are joining the call for stimulus spending. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Of course; they always do.

The primary dealers get a little slice of Treasury issuance -- that's part of what these guys do for a living!