The Sinister Design Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Author Topic: American Jobs Act  (Read 4894 times)

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
American Jobs Act
« on: September 14, 2011, 04:12:19 PM »

Does anyone have any thoughts on Obama's American Jobs Act?
Do you think it will improve the economy or waste alot of money?
Do you think it pass in the House or Senate?
Is this a legitimate jobs plan or simply a political move to run for reelection?
Are there any parts of the bill that you like or hate?
What do you think about Obama's method of paying for the bill?

ArtDrake

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 05:22:07 PM »

These questions are geared towards the crushing of any statement of opinion contrary to yours, and do not provide for a balanced and two-sided debate. The use of a "thumbs down" topic image doesn't help.

Neither does that fact that I'm using a Danish keyboard, and trying to write in English.
Logged

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2011, 07:35:05 PM »

These questions are geared towards the crushing of any statement of opinion contrary to yours, and do not provide for a balanced and two-sided debate.
I didn't choose questions to crush contrary opinions like you claim.  I asked questions instead of directly expressing my view, because I wanted to see if anyone shares my views before certain individuals start attacking my opinions.

Since you think I have some hidden agenda, ignore my questions and just express your views on the American Jobs Act.

Deagonx

  • Stone Golem
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2011, 03:48:23 AM »

He said he planned to save 1 trillion in government spending over the next 10 years. I barely find that plausible.
Logged
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?

ArtDrake

  • Black Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 724
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2011, 03:14:41 PM »

What, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the Act to debate it well.
However, I apologize if I have insulted you too much. The questions look like the sort Deagonx posts about Islam.

"Do you think it will improve the economy, or waste a lot of money?"
I think it will probably do a bit of both, but the way the question is asked, anyone who wishes to defend a position where they do not consider the Act to be a waste of money must prove without doubt that it does not waste any money. The exclusive "or" puts those without an ironclad defense at the mercy of a few cited statistics.
Logged

Deagonx

  • Stone Golem
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2011, 08:14:27 PM »

What, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...

The questions look like the sort Deagonx posts about Islam.

1. No, not "save 1 trillian dollars in all in the next 10 years" more like "we will be spending 1 trillion dollars less than we are now in 10 years"

2. Was that necessary? I don't even see how you can compare them. Will it pass. Is it legitimate. Are there any parts that you like or hate.

He hasn't said anything even a little bit controversial. They were un-biased straight forward questions.
Logged
I believe in evolution. How else would Charmander become Charizard?

Dean_Lukas

  • Stone Golem
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2011, 11:20:00 PM »

I'm watching stuff on Hulu... have gotten campaign-ad like ads in favor of the bill at seemingly every commercial break.

This kinda confirms what I figured--Obama is not expecting it to pass and basically doing it to help himself in 2012. "Look, I wanted to give people jobs but the Republicans blocked me."
Logged
That awkward moment when your student's gone evil and wants to destroy you.

SmartyPants

  • White Cape
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
    • -----
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2011, 02:32:26 PM »

What, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...
During the deficit debate, Harry Reid tried to convince the public that the Senate cut an extra 1 trillion dollars when all he did was account for us drawing down forces in two wars.

First, I thought making the speech in a joint session congress was in bad taste.  The president is suppose to only make speechs in joint session of Congress during important events such as State of the Union Addresses, presidential inaugurations, and declaring war.  To use congress as a prop for a his 2012 re-election campaign ads is tasteless.

Many Republicans were cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech.  The speech preached partisan ideas such as infrastructure spending and said the plan would would be fully paid for.  Even though there some exclusively Democratic ideas such extending unemployment for a third time and having temporary payroll tax cuts, Obama's speech said he was willing to compromise.  His speech conveniently left out that he wanted to fund the bill by raising taxes on the rich by not allowing them to get tax breaks for charitable contributions.  By wanting to permanently raise taxes, Obama clearly doesn't expect Republicans to allow the bill to be passed and only wanted to use the bill for his reelection campaign.  He is already using the bill for 2012 campaigning by promoting it in almost exclusively swing states.  Obama is playing politics instead of governing.

Obama promised us that if we passed the first stimulus bill that unemployment wouldn't be above 8%. That just proves that the first stimuls bill failed despite costing 1 trillion dollars.  Since this is essentially another stimulus bill, I think the new stimulus bill will also spend a huge amount of money and create very few jobs.

I do agree with the infrastructure spending, because infrastructure is one of the tasks that government actually should spend money on.  When the housing bubble burst, construction was one of the hardest hit industries because there weren't any new homes being built.  Since infrastructure is already underfunded, it seems like a good idea to take advantage of the surplus of construction workers and repair our roads and bridges.

I don't like the temporary payroll tax cuts and you guys shouldn't either.  First, temporary tax cuts doesn't encourage businesses to hire.  The entire business community said they won't hire workers who last more then a year because of a tax cut that only last a year.  If the tax cut was permanent, then they could use the permanent savings to hire more permanent workers.  Second, Social Security is already going to run out before any of us get a chance to see it.  Since payroll taxes are Social Security only source of revenue, I don't like the idea of cuting it and further underfunding the already underfunded entitlement program.

I don't like how Obama tends to fund the bill, because it shows that he using the bill to use class-warfare as part of his reelection bid.  First he wants to remove the "oil and gas tax loopholes".  Those "loopholes" are manufacturing subsidies that oil companies get for turning raw materials such as crude oil into refined materials such as gasoline.  Obama thinks the highly efficient and profitable oil companies are evil for getting manufacturing subsidies, while the inefficient and unprofitable solar panels companies and car manufatures should have the government pour money into them.  The biggest source of money he wants to fund his new stimulus bill is from removing tax breaks people get for charitable contributions.  There are tons of write offs and tax breaks the government use to try to micromanage our lives that should be removed, but tax breaks for charitable contributions isn't one of them.  Tax breaks for charitable contributions allows charities to be very well funded and it allows people to pick where they want their money to go to instead of politicians and bureaucrats picking for us.  I remember that FEMA couldn't be relied on during Hurricane Katrina and Rita, but the Red Cross stepped up and helped take care of alot of people.  I don't understand why Obama wants FEMA to have more money one week and then suggest to defund charities such as the Red Cross the next week.

Small businesses will be hurt by this bill because it mixes a temporary tax cut with a permanent tax increase.

If Obama really wanted a non-partisan bill, then he would have funded the increase in temporary spending (even programs Republicans don't like such as unemployment) with permanent spending cuts.

GlennPearson

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: American Jobs Act
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2014, 08:06:34 AM »

What, you don't think that 100 billion a year is plausible? Ending a war would do that...
During the deficit debate, Harry Reid tried to convince the public that the Senate cut an extra 1 trillion dollars when all he did was account for us drawing down forces in two wars.

First, I thought making the speech in a joint session congress was in bad taste.  The president is suppose to only make speechs in joint session of Congress during important events such as State of the Union Addresses, presidential inaugurations, and declaring war.  To use congress as a prop for a his 2012 re-election campaign ads is tasteless.

Many Republicans were cautiously optimistic after hearing the speech.  The speech preached partisan ideas such as infrastructure spending and said the plan would would be fully paid for.  Even though there some exclusively Democratic ideas such extending unemployment for a third time and having temporary payroll tax cuts, Obama's speech said he was willing to compromise.  His speech conveniently left out that he wanted to fund the bill by raising taxes on the rich by not allowing them to get tax breaks for charitable contributions.  By wanting to permanently raise taxes, Obama clearly doesn't expect Republicans to allow the bill to be passed and only wanted to use the bill for his reelection campaign.  He is already using the bill for 2012 campaigning by promoting it in almost exclusively swing states.  Obama is playing politics instead of governing.

Obama promised us that if we passed the first stimulus bill that unemployment wouldn't be above 8%. That just proves that the first stimuls bill failed despite costing 1 trillion dollars.  Since this is essentially another stimulus bill, I think the new stimulus bill will also spend a huge amount of money and create very few jobs.

I do agree with the infrastructure spending, because infrastructure is one of the tasks that government actually should spend money on.  When the housing bubble burst, construction was one of the hardest hit industries because there weren't any new homes being built.  Since infrastructure is already underfunded, it seems like a good idea to take advantage of the surplus of construction workers and repair our roads and bridges.

I don't like the temporary payroll tax cuts and you guys shouldn't either.  First, temporary tax cuts doesn't encourage businesses to hire.  The entire business community said they won't hire workers who last more then a year because of a tax cut that only last a year.  If the tax cut was permanent, then they could use the permanent savings to hire more permanent workers.  Second, Social Security is already going to run out before any of us get a chance to see it.  Since payroll taxes are Social Security only source of revenue, I don't like the idea of cuting it and further underfunding the already underfunded entitlement program.

I don't like how Obama tends to fund the bill, because it shows that he using the bill to use class-warfare as part of his reelection bid.  First he wants to remove the "oil and gas tax loopholes".  Those "loopholes" are manufacturing subsidies that oil companies get for turning raw materials such as crude oil into refined materials such as gasoline.  Obama thinks the highly efficient and profitable oil companies are evil for getting manufacturing subsidies, while the inefficient and unprofitable peimar solar and car manufatures should have the government pour money into them.  The biggest source of money he wants to fund his new stimulus bill is from removing tax breaks people get for charitable contributions.  There are tons of write offs and tax breaks the government use to try to micromanage our lives that should be removed, but tax breaks for charitable contributions isn't one of them.  Tax breaks for charitable contributions allows charities to be very well funded and it allows people to pick where they want their money to go to instead of politicians and bureaucrats picking for us.  I remember that FEMA couldn't be relied on during Hurricane Katrina and Rita, but the Red Cross stepped up and helped take care of alot of people.  I don't understand why Obama wants FEMA to have more money one week and then suggest to defund charities such as the Red Cross the next week.

Small businesses will be hurt by this bill because it mixes a temporary tax cut with a permanent tax increase.

If Obama really wanted a non-partisan bill, then he would have funded the increase in temporary spending (even programs Republicans don't like such as unemployment) with permanent spending cuts.

Very wrong policies are made by US govt and people are really unsatisfied with it.. Unemployment and raised taxes have been the cause of worry.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2014, 08:18:00 AM by GlennPearson »
Logged