It's surely futile to mention this..but as the basic materials (metals, metal ore, fossil-fuels), that power our capitalist economies begin their final slide to nothing, our species should really start thinking in terms of a permanently contracting world economy.

There are other ways to run a civilization--although our population on this planet is definitely in over-shoot now, and we will see significant die-off before our population reaches some kind of sustainable level--there's not enough food, not enough water, and definitely not enough energy to sustain 7 billion souls on Planet Earth--and we better start finding some other ways besides unfettered capitalism to run our civilization..or we won't have one.

This constant drumbeat of "growing" our economy, in the US or in the World, sounds increasingly ridiculous to anyone who has spent any time studying this stuff.

We're running out of the shit that powers our civilization. There won't be *any more* of that shit. No substitute will take the place of the energy-density of fossil-fuels, millions of years of ancient sunshine compressed into the most miraculous substance mankind has ever known. And we burned up most of it in 30% efficient heat-engines.

That was bright. It's things like that that make me doubt the truth of the *Sapiens* in homo-sapiens.

Ah well. Our mendacious politicians will keep gabbling about growth until the last drop of oil is extracted, the last tree cut down, the last ton of copper-ore mined.

We're idiots.

www.dieoff.org

www.warsocialism.com

Nice to see that my new Senator, Cosmo Brown, voted for the jobs bill. Now, if only he'll vote for Health Care Reconciliation, I may stop thinking he's a disaster. May.

I'm certainly glad this passed, and, yes, it is good to hear that this will not be the last jobs bill that the Dems will bring forward. One interesting thing I note about the news item is that it is Chuck Schumer who is quoted as the "voice" of the party in the Senate. Could it be that the Dems are looking ahead to a post-Reid landscape after November, in which they will elevate Schumer to lead the caucus? If so, I'm liking what I hear so far, and I like that prospect in general-- Schumer has a hell of a lot more backbone than Reid!

(And, yes, I know, Durbin is next in the lineup after Reid, but I doubt they would elevate him while an Illinois president occupies the White House).

...11 Republican votes in support of anything seems like a pleasant surprise.

Or cause for concern.

sort of a trickle-down jobs bill, which is to say, a tax cut bill, not a jobs bill...

this isn't serious thought, work or representation of the american people in the employment crisis... this is mostly smoke and mirrors...

Few lines can top , "It was a cold and stormy night" , none the less I am impressed with , "It's surely futile to mention this.." .
Good job !

I assume some subset of the 11 crossover R's nonetheless supported the filibuster? Anyone have that list at the ready? Because their opponents are sitting on a ready-made campaign issue. . .

DARK and stormy night, FRP. "Dark night" adds redundancy to banality.

I suspect that the 11 Republicans, realizing how a vote against a job bill would look, decided that party loyalty is not a suicide pact. Looks like glimmers of sanity breaking out.

In a surprising display, a whopping 11 Republicans voted with the Democratic majority [...] -- Steve Benen

If Repubs hadn't been so fossilised in their opposition to "everything Democratic-led", it wouldn't have been a surprise at all, since it's mostly a tax-break bill -- ie something right up their alley.

but the crux of the jobs bill is a payroll tax cut on newly-hired employees,

A near useless measure that most economists correctly point out will not create jobs. Business hires a person to generate revenue, either through increasing sales or improving productivity. That revenue should be greater than the cost of hiring them. A temporary tax break does not generate revenue.

If you want business to hire, you need to boost their revenue. Buy their products or services.

We can have a lengthly debate about how or if governmetn can do that. But a this measure will do virtually nothing to improve the jobs situation (on its own).

That revenue should be greater than the cost of hiring them. A temporary tax break does not generate revenue.

No, but as you pointed out, there are two sides to the equation -- it does reduce the cost. And as for the temporary part, the main problem now is not to create jobs that would not be created otherwise, it is a chicken-and-egg problem -- businesses know that at some point in the future, there will be enough demand to justify additional hiring, but more people will need to be employed and spending to create that demand. So the point of a temporary measure is to try to change "jobs that will be created in the future" to "jobs that are created now" and jump-start the process.

I agree that tax breaks are nowhere close to the most effective measure, but when faced with the obstacle of ideologues who will block the more effective direct measures, it's still better than nothing.

I'll throw LL a bone here, as I largely agree with the points made.

Problem is, people don't think in terms of our ultimate existence. Not only did we burn most of our fossil fuels inefficiently, but look not only at how quickly we did it but also at how much of an impact, from an environmental/sustainability standpoint, it has made. It boggles my mind when I consider that it was roughly only 100 years ago that internal combustion engines came into existence, and look what has happened in that brief time.

For what it's worth, I think we need to establish ourselves somewhere else other than Earth (hence my handle...:)), but again I know most people don't think like that. But a true focus on this goal would reveal the almost limitless availability of raw materials, including fresh water, that is there for the taking and using. but we're too focused inward, on our petty grievances and false gods to think big like that.

So, I continue to tinker around the edges. I dream, and some of the work I do is in the space program. Oh, and I read sci-fi voraciously (before you freak out--there is a lot of really entertaining writing out there; it's not all ray guns and artificial gravity, you know).

Senator Inhofe joining Voinovich, Collins, Alexander and Snowe in voting "Aye".

Did his finger slip?

I agree that tax breaks are nowhere close to the most effective measure, but when faced with the obstacle of ideologues who will block the more effective direct measures, it's still better than nothing.

The good thing is, the second half the stimulus spending is finally starting to kick in this year and we are seeing a least a slowing in umemployment growth with a chance at some actual jobs growth later this year. A small chance, but a chance. If that does happen Obama and Democrats will be able to claim correlation as causation and tout this bill and the stimulus as working.

I'm a tad bothered by "give employers an exemption from payroll taxes through the end of 2010"... does this translate to employees as well? Are they exempt through the end of 2010, or are they otherwise responsible for submission of payment?