KILL THE BILL KILL THE BILL!!! Obama once again not doing enough for us..

[DFab420]

This so called "jobs" act only creates 1 million jobs!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/will-the-american-jobs-act-create-jobs.html

Obviouly Obama hasn't heard us. We want ALL the jobs.

I mean if we wanted to kill Healthcare Reform because it only covered an extra 32 Million people how can any "real liberal" support this jobs bill

I mean ...ONLY A MILLION JOBS!! Call your congress person and tell them you want only a pure progressive victory, and that anything other then the perfect, most ideal jobs program where every person gets a job we won't be happy and will sit on our hands next election to teach them a lesson..........

KILL THE BILL



Just in case it didn't make it through in the writing....
:sarcasm::sarcasm:

[elleng]

1. Thanks, DFab,

I needed that (sort of.)

A/K/A, gimme gimme gimme NOW.

[ProSense]

2. The estimates

I've seen are between 2 million and 4 million jobs.

[DFab420]

3. Ah well I was just using the quote in the PBS article. But I like your numbers better...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/09/will-the-american-jobs-act-create-jobs.html

"Next question: How many jobs? The loftiest estimates top out at one million. "



On Edit* This figure may be for just the first year!! 1 Million in the first year!

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. And why would ANYONE be hiring, if nobodty has anything to spend?

Health care costs are still going up, rents are going up; are the tax savings going to keep pace with the unmentioned inflation? If there is no net gain in the populations' pockets, what are they going to be buying which will induce employers to increase their workforce? Have you EVER heard of an employer taking on more people because he had more money available, rather than he NEEDED more people to handle his customer load? If there was enough demand to require him taking on more employees, wouldn't he do that anyway, regardless of tax incentives?

Meanwhile, Obama further undercuts the economy by pushing for MORE free trade agreements.

Even if this creates 1 million new jobs over the next year, we need 1.5 million just to keep up with population growth - one million would be a net LOSS of 500,000 jobs.

[truedelphi]

6. He keeps throwing us crumbs, and meanwhile he enables the top

One Percent to keep stealing entire pies!

Not surprising, as by now, many of us understand who he is really working for.

And it sure ain't you or me.

[DFab420]

7. Hahahha...thanks guys.. you're helping my OP

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

19. I don't have anything against your OP.

I have a lot against a man whose chief economic appointee, Timmy Geithner, has helped the Upper One Percent receive some Nine to Thirty Trillions of dollars, while my age group is put on the back burner.

Now it looks like people in my age group have to work till they are 67.

Even though we cannot find work while we re in our later fifties. Most of our employment disadvantage is linked to the exorbitant health insurance premiums that are required and allowed by the new Health Care reform Bill.

And how many fifty year olds can do road construction?

[jefferson_dem]

8. haha...

You forgot the :sarcasm:

[DFab420]

9. On it. Thanks haha

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. >>>>>

:rofl:

[ProSense]

10. What?

"Even if this creates 1 million new jobs over the next year, we need 1.5 million just to keep up with population growth - one million would be a net LOSS of 500,000 jobs."

First, you're complaining about adding a million jobs when the economy added zero last month?

Secondly, the estimates are between 2 million and 4 million jobs.

Even in this world, creating an additional 150,000 to 300,000 per month is progress.

[DFab420]

11. Lol kinda gets back to the point of my OP..150,000 to 300,000 isn't enough??

Obama hates us he only is helping get 300,000 jobs a month!!!!

Single Payer! Etc etc etc!!

ODS = perfect the enemy of good...

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomCat]

40. When people are drowning, you don't celebrate

pulling them almost up to the surface. "Well, Gee, we made some upward progress!" :eyes:

Unless we add enough jobs to at least break even, and put at least a few people back to work, and keep creating that many jobs, we're not saving people.

[EffieBlack]

42. Under your analogy - this isn't pulling them almost to the surface - it's pulling some ALL the way

to the surface and, thereby, saving them. The fact that he's not saving EVERY one is not a reason to attack him for saving as many as he can.

[boppers]

24. "And why would ANYONE be hiring, if nobodty has anything to spend?"

Because that's how you make incredibly large shitloads of money.

"Have you EVER heard of an employer taking on more people because he had more money available, rather than he NEEDED more people to handle his customer load?"

Yes.

It's called R&D, new product development, new production lines. I'm on one of those right now. They had the cash, they know they can buy assets cheap, they can get labor cheap, and they know that large companies operating in 20th century models may have better long-term durability, but that they can be displaced by smaller companies with big ideas, or even big companies with big ideas.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. uh,

1 million out of 25 million is the illusion of progress. It is not progress.

And the HCR does NOT cover an extra 32 million (while leaving 25 million still exposed) because any number of that 32 million will be unable to get health CARE even if they have insurance, as they are left with the choice between the co-pay and deductible, or the groceries and rent.

And it is funded by undercutting SS funding, with yet another 'tax holiday' taking money away from a program that they claim is already in dire straits. That doesn't seem a little off to you?

[bhikkhu]

18. Like I tell the kids - every journey starts with a single step

which is only a lousy 24 inches or so - it hardly gets you anywhere! Why bother even getting out of bed anyway?

[obxhead]

12. So you're willing to trade 1 million (maybe) temporary jobs for

the opening to end SS.

[DFab420]

15. You know..other the Larouche and The Blaze I have yet to find any proof that the American Jobs Act

opens the ending of SS at all..

Links?

[ThomCat]

16. Obama himself, in his speech said that he would be making

changes to Medicare that many would find unpopular, and he is paying for this jobs bill in large part with $240 billion in tax cuts to the payroll tax, which pays for... Social Security and Medicare.

So if you take $240 Billion and transfer it from Social Security and Medicare, to a jobs program, He is paying for the jobs program by sacrificing the care of seniors and people with disabilities.

And, he is deliberately undermining both Social Security and Medicare, creating an opportunity for a political attack on both programs. The big funding hole can and will be used as a "crisis" to claim there is some urgent need to privatize and/or slash medicare and social security even more.

As soon as Obama announced that he was making changes to Medicare, and then announced cuts to the payroll tax, he was announcing a targeted attack against both social security and medicare. He was announcing a targeted attack against seniors and people with disabilities.

[SadPanda]

20. The problem is you just grasp at particular phrases in a speech...

You are reaching. We are 14 months away from an election. The idea that a 2nd term Obama Presidency would cut access to quality Medicare is ridiculous on its face. A 2nd term Obama is a whole other ballgame. Obama had his first two years in office to pass legislation through a filibuster. He passed quite a lot. With serious results over time. The problem is some in the progressive community want IMMEDIATE results from Obama. Lets be honest. This Presidency was always trying to get to a 2nd term. To do that they had to combat a tremendous right wing billion dollar avalanche of pure bullshit and hatred. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FUCKING CRAZY.

We beat ourselves.

They absolutely hate Obama. They hate his supposed beliefs. They hate his skin. They hate his hair. They hate his wife. They hate his pretty children. Everything about them. Millions of the far right still believe that President Obama was born in Kenya, part of some vast left wing conspiracy of, well who knows.

I believe I saw some sitcom about removing a body part from an orifice. This is that moment.

[ThomCat]

28. Why is it ridiculous.

Democrats have in the past repeatedly endorsed reducing access to programs as a cost cutting measure.

Obama himself made delaying access to healthcare the means of cutting costs in his insurance reform measures.

To think that it's ridiculous to think he'll do it again when he's saying he'll do it is naive.

To think that he won't do what he's coming right out and saying he's going to do is covering your ears and giving him and his corporate advisers a free pass to gut necessary programs with your permission.

[SadPanda]

43. when has Obama during his first term cut access to healthcare?

He expanded it you moron. Ok, q argument about healthcare bill wasn't enough. But now you're talking about he is obviously going to cut. Despite the fact he increased it.

So tired of these stupid arguments on this board.

[bornskeptic]

22. How do you manage to stay that ignorant?

I thought even the most clueless Obama Bashers had conceded the well-known fact that the payroll tax cut takes nothing from Social Security. Most of them have shifted over to argument baseed on paranoid fear of what Republicans will say: "Oh noes! We can't do no progressive tax policy! Republicans will say the money came fron the general fund and Social Security will die!" That's the assigned talking point. Get with the program.

[ThomCat]

29. Really, then where do you think Social Security gets funded from?

If it isn't getting funded from the payroll tax?

[Akoto]

30. My understanding is that ...

Social Security is obviously funded from the SS account, which probably does draw from the payroll tax. SSI, which many people who don't qualify for SSDI receive, comes from the Treasury.

I've read that funding lost by changes in the bill will be repaid via the changes to tax loopholes and taxes to people with high incomes. I apologize, but I don't have a link; it was elsewhere on the boards. It's something I watch, being on SSI for life.

[ThomCat]

32. You are mistaken. Both come from the same source.

Both always have. People qualify for SSI in a different way than they qualify for SSD, but that is the only difference. The funding isn't different, just the way in which people qualify to receive it.

The people who receive SSI are usually children, so we all pay for it out of our payroll tax so that our children will be covered if any of us die young. We pay for it on behalf of our children out of our payroll taxes.

None of the money for social security has ever come out of the treasury general fund. Until now, if this goes through.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. So we are exchanging funding of SS today for the PROMISE of funding

from other sources tomorrow - those other sources being republican sacred cows which they have pledged to Grover Norquist to NEVER touch.

The dynamic is any cut made today is PERMANENT. Watch what will happen when it comes time to restore the SS tax to its previous levels. "THEY'RE RAISING TAXES!!!! AAAGGHHH!!!"

SS was created as a stand-alone. Cutting the payroll tax, and replacing the lost revenue from OTHER tax sources in the future completely undermines that 'stand alone' status - it becomes just another program, and subject to annual budget battles.

The 'payroll tax holiday' is no fucking holiday - it is the beginning of the end of Social Security.

We've been had.

[ThomCat]

39. Yes. We've been had, again, big time.

And yet again, we've been had. By Obama, a supposed Democrat, again selling us a Republican wet dream as if it's supposed to help the poorest of us, when it fact, it's going to undermine the way our society helps our poorest and neediest.

[okieinpain]

34. thank you. n/t.

[Lionessa]

13. I get your point, however, I believe the reason the Repubs are able to claim that the first stimulus

didn't really work is because is wasn't big enough, it didn't employ enough, nor last long enough, nor spend enough. If his jobs bills this time does the same, "it could've been worse," but no more than that, as was the case with the last stimulus... I think he'll pay for it again.

People are going to notice or feel better about a jobs arena when their particular unemployed friend, relative, or self aren't reasonably included in that 1 out of 14 ration in the possibility of a job. It's just not enough, not even a 10% improvement? Just not enough.

[JTFrog]

17. Nothing he does will ever be enough for some folks.

And many of them need to quit sucking up DU's bandwith.

Just saying...

:shrug:

[Lionessa]

21. That's right, it's the Democratic way to silence critical thinking.

/sarcasm

[JTFrog]

41. Critical thinking?

Here's a message from Skinner:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6443683">A thought about context and the constructiveness of criticism.

So, if you want to be taken seriously -- if you want your constructive criticism to be accepted as constructive -- I humbly suggest that you put some effort into demonstrating that you actually want our guy to win this thing.

:nopity:

[okieinpain]

35. ouch! n/t.

[mtnsnake]

45. "And many of them need to quit sucking up DU's bandwith."

Yeah, that would be great for you, wouldn't it, if DU turned into one big bath of apologists who don't dare to question the President on a single issue. How progressive...

[JTFrog]

46. Do you somehow relate to that comment?

For the record, I agree with Skinner 100% on credibility and the constructiveness of criticism.

:shrug:

[treestar]

23. It's very simple! All Obama has to do is nationalize all

of the companies by executive order!!!1111 :rofl:

:sarcasm:

[slay]

25. I agree - Obama is screwing us

just not on this - well kinda but he's done worse - nice try though. unrec.

[no limit]

27. Insure 32 million by forcing everyone to buy private insurance?

Hey I got an idea. Lets fix homelessness by requiring everyone buy a home.

Makes sense, right?

[okieinpain]

36. but wouldn't the public option be the same thing. you do pay

for universal health care.

[no limit]

37. Yes, but you aren't required to give your money to a private insurance company

a private insurance company who's only goal is to fuck you out of the benefits you pay for in any way possible in an effort to make as much profit as possible.

Everyone should be able to buy in to medicare, simple as that. Yet the argument was never framed that way, why?

[Marrah_G]

48. No it would not be the same.

Single Payer is not for profit. No one would be getting bonuses for refusing treatments or raising rates. No one would make a profit off the suffering and death of others. Also the administrative costs would be far less.

[okieinpain]

50. ok got two replies one is no not the same the other is yes the

same. who's right.

[Marrah_G]

52. If you read both replies they do not contradict each other

Yes- You would pay for single payer but its far more cost effective then paying a corporation who's sole reason for being is to make a profit from the pain and suffering of others. They profit by finding ways to cut costs and avoid payment. They spend millions on bonuses and people are rewarded for denying coverage.

The over head for Medicare is far less then any Insurance company out there.

[GOTV]

51. Self Delete

[Hart2008]

38. unrec for needless sarcasm on serious topic. NT

[Union Scribe]

44. Agreed.

If a person's reaction to a proposed bill is to think, "I can't wait to use this against people on the internet, now where did I leave my sarcasm juice," then they are in this for all the wrong reasons.

[Marrah_G]

47. The Health Insurance bill sucked too

The Corporations won out in that one also.

I work two part time jobs, one of them at minimum wage ringing a damn register. I want a Democratic party that will push for REAL jobs and not fuck with SS. Instead we get more of the same bullshit. None of it will stop jobs from being shipped over seas so corporations can hoard more money and more money and more money and pay little to nothing in taxes.

I would like to see the President and Legislature to do something for US instead of worrying about their own fucking campaign coffers.

No politicians come out of DC poor.

[shotten99]

49. +1

[rasputin1952]

53. The alternative is a massive loss of jobs...

Each job produced, in turn opens up opportunity to create more jobs. When people work, they purchase, creating more demand, thus creating jobs. It's a starting point...not an end point.

Sit on your hands if you want to, but then those million jobs, as well as millions more evaporate. I for one will fight tooth and nail to ensure R's don't' gain more power, in fact I want them to lose massively.

No one will ever get everything, that is a simple fact, sit on your hands if you will, but if we all did that, the GOP would regain power and the only way you'll keep your hands warm is by sitting on them in the cold winter the GOP would bring the country.