Political Animal

Blog

October 11, 2011 1:15 PM The fate of the America Jobs Act

By Steve Benen

On paper, tonight’s vote in the Senate should be one of the year’s biggest no-brainers.

In the midst of a jobs crisis and intense public demand for congressional action, senators will have a chance to weigh in on the American Jobs Act. Most Americans support its provisions; it enjoys strong support from economists; it includes ideas from both parties; and the CBO found it will even lower the deficit over the next decade. All told, the plan would likely add about 1.9 million jobs to an economy that desperately needs them. Opponents have simply run out of excuses.

What politician in his/her right mind is going to reject a sensible jobs bill when unemployment is still at crisis levels? Apparently, the answer is a majority in both the House and Senate.

The House, with a radicalized Republican majority, is almost certainly a lost cause anyway, but the goal has been to get a vote in the Senate first, where at least there’s an ostensible Democratic majority. Republicans, who’ve already effectively broken the institution, will filibuster the jobs bill. Why? Because they’re Republicans, and they don’t believe in giving legislation up-or-down votes.

But if the Democratic caucus sticks together, they can at least ensure that a majority of the Senate is on record supporting the bill. That’s not going to happen, either.

Democrats would need all 53 of their members to vote yes along with seven Republicans, and already three members of the Democratic caucus have said they will vote no. Sen. Joseph Manchin of West Virginia questions the effectiveness of the package, wondering whether we’ll get the bang from the buck. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., both don’t like the way Democratic leaders have proposed to pay for this bill with a new 5.6 percent surtax on any personal income over $1 million. They say that this is not the time to be raising taxes on anyone, including millionaires.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but these members certainly look like cowards. “This is not the time to be raising taxes on anyone”? The plan calls for millionaires and billionaires — and no one else — to pay a little more starting in 2013. Nelson and Lieberman are not illiterate; they surely know the basic details of the bill. But Nelson is afraid of losing next year, and Lieberman is, well, Lieberman, so both will reject a popular jobs bill — and a popular tax increase — during a jobs crisis.

Making matters slightly worse, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D) will apparently be in her home state of New Hampshire tonight to pick up an award she’s won. She supports the American Jobs Act, but Shaheen apparently doesn’t intend to show up for work tonight.

Are there any Republicans willing to do the right thing? Even one moderate who may want to create some jobs? No.

As a result, the chances of the jobs bill even getting 50 votes has apparently disappeared.

Pollster Stanley Greenberg told Greg Sargent this morning that Dems who oppose the American Jobs Act are making a big mistake — it will not only hurt the party going into 2012, it will hurt these individual members’ standing with their own constituents.

Some Dems are panicky about 2012; I get that. But here’s a tip Democratic lawmakers may want to keep in mind: voters generally aren’t impressed when Dems vote against their own party’s popular ideas to create jobs.

For every voter — left or right — who’s inclined to blame President Obama for unemployment, the last several weeks have been illustrative. The president has done absolutely everything that could be asked of him — his White House crafted a serious plan; he sold it well to a joint session; he hit the road to present it to voters; and he’s used the kind of arguments the “professional left” has been urging him to make.

And yet, House Republicans are still extremists, Senate Republicans are both radical and obstructionist, and a few Senate Democrats are more comfortable cowering under the table in a fetal position, hoping the GOP isn’t too mean to them.

Obama, in other words, isn’t the problem.

Steve Benen is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly, joining the publication in August, 2008 as chief blogger for the Washington Monthly blog, Political Animal.

Comments

Post a comment
  • martin on October 11, 2011 1:24 PM:

    But here’s a tip Democratic lawmakers may want to keep in mind: voters generally aren’t impressed when Dems vote against their own party’s popular ideas to create jobs.

    Or, as they should know by now: Given a choice between a Republican and a Republican, they will pick the Republican every time.

  • JohnC on October 11, 2011 1:30 PM:

    What drives me nuts is that a surtax on people earning a million dollars PER YEAR is labelled a tax on "millionaires." Um, no.

    Most millionaires do not make $1 million per year - rather they build up that fortune over the course of a working lifetime. In fact that "millionaire" surtax would apply only to the small fraction of millionaires who earn a million per year.

  • Phil Perspective on October 11, 2011 1:33 PM:

    But he did enable Ben Nelson with the "Cornhusker Kickback" and that $500,000 spent by the DNC on ads in Nebraska. Oh yeah, who enabled HolyJoe after HolyJoe endorsed Cranky McSame?

  • Josef K on October 11, 2011 1:39 PM:

    I have to wonder if Senators Nelson, Lieberman and Shaheen fully grasp what's at stake, and what their cowardice is inviting.

    Senator Manchin is at least giving a plausible explanation for his "no". Heck, it sounds even half-way principled.

  • digitusmedius on October 11, 2011 1:47 PM:

    Cowardly doesn't even begin to describe these worthless pieces of walking shite. One expects nothing out of Republicans but when Dems can't even take a safe vote and defend it in their campaigns I truly hope they lose their seats. It's better not to have them in at all than have them torpedoing the President time after time which is what all three of these schmucks are famous for doing.

  • John E on October 11, 2011 1:48 PM:

    Why not hold the vote up a day so Sheeheen could vote for it at least and have it go 50-50 with Biden's tiebreaking vote?

    It's very discouraging to see a political party I support just so bad at, well, politics.

  • whichwitch on October 11, 2011 1:50 PM:

    And what will the headlines read?

    Obama Plan Fails to Even Get Dem Support

    ...or the like.

  • digitusmedius on October 11, 2011 1:51 PM:

    Senator Manchin is at least giving a plausible explanation for his "no". Heck, it sounds even half-way principled.

    All he needs to do is vote for cloture which won't pass in any case. Even if it did pass he could then vote against it. All he has to do is give the minimum fig-leaf of support to his party. If he can't do that, he's worthless. But Shaheen, not even showing for it is another pile of dogshite altogether.

  • Holmes on October 11, 2011 1:52 PM:

    John E, the Republicans are going to filibuster it anyway. This is just a vote to allow debate, not passage of the bill.

    Getting enough votes for it to pass in the event of no filibuster is about messaging. If the Dems can't even muster 51 votes, it prevents them from rightly claiming it failed because Republicans blocked it.

  • Peter C on October 11, 2011 1:55 PM:

    Truly, if it were only up to me, I would kick Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman out of the party - big tent be damned. Party members should take a hypocratic oath - first, do no harm. In my view, these sorts of moves do tremendous harm; when they stab us on all the big votes while everyone is watching, who cares how they act on the small ones when no one is paying attention?

  • LJL on October 11, 2011 1:58 PM:

    Barack Obama is good. The Occupiers are good. But the rest of America I'm not so sure about.

  • some guy on October 11, 2011 2:01 PM:

    who is Ben nelson's primary challenger?

    Bene claims he shouldn't get one: "I still think these challenges can and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It's tough, for example, to threaten Sen. Ben Nelson with a primary challenge from the left. He represents a pretty "red" state (Nebraska), and for all I know, Nelson may actually like a primary opponent to help prove that he's not part of the Democratic mainstream."


    maybe we should see how much Nelson likes a well-funded primary challenger? But unless and until such a figure emerges, and unless and until Democratic operatives like Benen make the case FOR a primary challenger, Nelson will flip the bird to his party with impunity.

  • SaintZak on October 11, 2011 2:06 PM:

    Cowards? They're far from cowardly. If only they were cowards they could be appealed to. No, they're doing their masters bidding. They'll vote "no" because they've been paid to vote "no." Call that what you will, but it's not cowardly.

    Personally, I'm tired of peaceful protest. It's time to drag this scum out into the street. Revolution is coming to this country, and it won't be peaceful or pretty.

  • Peter C on October 11, 2011 2:08 PM:

    I just wrote this note to Jeanne Shaheen (http://www.jeanneshaheen.org/contact):
    Jeanne, you really need to forego your award ceremony tonight and vote for the American Jobs Act. The vote tonight, even though it won't succeed, is the most important one this year.

    Then, if you really want to make me happy, you'll walk up to Ben Nelson and punch him in the face, hard. You, at least, have the access to send the message of just how angry he makes me.

  • Mitch on October 11, 2011 2:11 PM:

    The fact that Lieberman is still courted by Democrats is another example of the Democratic Party's mental illness. He is an enemy of progressivism, and probably has always been one. Ending the career that two-faced, back-stabbing weasel should be high on the priority list for the Dems.

    Actually I take that back. Calling Lieberman a weasel is an insult to a brave and beautiful thing. Sorry, mustelidae, I did not mean to compare you to Lieberman!

  • Memekiller on October 11, 2011 2:13 PM:

    JMM made exactly the right point - run against Congress. If the Dems are so dysfunctional and beholden to Wall Street that they vote where the money is rather than the voters, then run against them, too.

    Again, you can aaccuse Obama of giving up too quickly - though, this time, it's to cut a deal with Dems. But he's not required to do them any favors.

    Make this the people vs. Wall Street stooges of either Party. Anyone who doesn't vote for this - Democrat or Republican - is a Wall Street stooge. Those who vote for it are for the people - the Democrats we want to keep in Congress, mostly.

  • DRF on October 11, 2011 2:14 PM:

    Manchin and Nelson are up for re-election next year. I understand their reluctance (although I disagree that this vote would hurt them). However, there simply is no excuse for Lieberman, who is retiring. I don't for a minute believe that he really opposes a higher marginal tax rate on high income earners. This is just Joe Lieberman insisting on getting his revenge on the Democratic Party.

  • jmgee on October 11, 2011 2:14 PM:

    I am certain there are Democrats in Nebraska capable of challenging Nelson in a primary and more Democrats ready to vote for such a challenge. But the national Democrats would make sure the challenger didn't see a dime, and Obama'd be the leader of that. Pols worship incumbency -- even at the cost of losing it.

  • Memekiller on October 11, 2011 2:19 PM:

    The whole value in Obama pushing his jobs bill is in making it clear who is fighting for the people, and who is in the pocket of the 1 percent. This shows that many Dems are in the pocket of the 1 percent.

    Of course it would be better to the Democratic Party on the side of the 99 percent, but if Obama cuts up his jobs bill into pieces, he loses his his whole campaign. So if some Dems are for the 1 percent, then they'll go on record as a one-percenter along with the Republican Party and suffer the same consequences. We'll lose the Senate, but we'll lose a lot more with a watered-down compromise to get those Blue Dogs on board.

  • Live Free or Die on October 11, 2011 2:20 PM:

    If the Democrats cannot even vote for a very popular bill, then they deserve to lose. This is one of easiest votes to explain to Americans. And Nelson SHOULD be primaried. I know that means a R will get that seat, but fuck it, the Republicans did the same thing, leading to them being wiped out of New England. But somehow they survived and are more cohesive. The Republican party functions in a parliamentary system, but Dems did not get the memo, so they are acting like stray cats.

  • Norbert on October 11, 2011 2:22 PM:

    Whatever group is presenting Shaheen with an "award" needs to reconsider, unless it is an award for being a shit, in which case, full steam ahead.

    Thanks to Peter C for posting her contact info.

  • Tony D. on October 11, 2011 2:30 PM:

    And with the jobs bill going down in flames, the corporate media will paint it as a major blow for Obama; I can already see the headlines from CNN and Politico. In reality, it will be a major blow for the people of this country (but who cares about reality).

  • SW on October 11, 2011 2:39 PM:

    Obama needs to campaign against anyone who bucks him on this. That includes Democrats. If you aren't loved by your caucus you need to at least be feared. He needs to make it clear that he will work for the defeat of anyone who doesn't support him on this. This is an existential issue for his presidency and he needs to make it an existential issue for every one of these motherfuckers. No exceptions. No special consideration for the Ben Nelsons of the world. These people may not believe that Obama can help them win in 2012. He needs to make it clear to them that he can cause them to lose. And he is prepared to make sure that this happens over this issue.

  • AK Liberal on October 11, 2011 2:39 PM:

    Primary Ben Nelson if you like, but if you think that a more liberal Democrat will be elected from North Dakota you are mistaken. Lieberman would be irrelevant to Democrats if the there was anyone left to deal with in the GOP. Shaheen just sounds as if she lacks the courage of her convictions. Very discouraging.

  • whichwitch on October 11, 2011 2:41 PM:

    I just contacted her website and relayed how important it is for her to vote tonight. Since I don't live in New Hampshire it probably won't even be read but it made me feel like I was Occupying.

  • kevo on October 11, 2011 2:44 PM:

    Keep Them On the Dole, Then Kick Them to the Curb!

    Now that's the headline I think is appropriate for our day and age when the Republican Brand is pulling out all stops to undercut decent, honest, wage-earning Americans who have fallen victim to the Wall Street Meltdown of 2008!

    Hey Washington politicos - what's there not to get? Why are you still insisting on a focused message from the Occupiers?

    Here's the focused message dudes in Congress - your inabilities to effectively do the job of representing all Americans has worn thin upon us, and we are mad as hell and are not taking it anymore!

    Now Boehner and McConnell, work to get the legislation necessary to put Americans back to work and quit fucking around with our livelihoods! -Kevo

  • IDTT on October 11, 2011 2:44 PM:

    @Tony D CNN and Politico already have their stories written, they simply need to dig up the unpublished stories they were going to print in 2009/2010 and replace "Public Option" with "Jobs Bill".

  • Memekiller on October 11, 2011 2:54 PM:

    "For every voter — left or right — who’s inclined to blame President Obama for unemployment, the last several weeks have been illustrative.The president has done absolutely everything that could be asked of him — his White House crafted a serious plan; he sold it well to a joint session; he hit the road to present it to voters; and he’s used the kind of arguments the “professional left” has been urging him to make."

    So true - but it is also illustrates Obama's own weakness - which has been kept in check up until today. His unwillingness to compromise and new strategy is making it very clear that it's not Obama who is the problem - it's an extremist GOP and corrupt middle.

    What we can blame Obama for is if he gives up this strategy and again becomes one of the muddled, compromising "leaders" gutting a good bill to benefit the bankers who got us here.

    The way Obama is demonstrating that he is not the problem, and that he, alone, is fighting for the people is by pushing a good bill for the people and not compromising. I hope the fact that some Dems are not for the people does not bring back the old, compromising Obama who has to sell the nation on what he's given up to Wall Street to get Lieberman on board.

    In a way, having the bill dies still helps undo the damage done by the brinksmanship fiasco, and will continue to benefit Obama so long as he stands by his bill. It clearly shows a dysfunctional politics and Congress is to blame - not Obama. Obama can't get anythign done because the Congress is mired in GOP extremists and Blue Dog Dems. It puts the blame squarely where it belongs - as long as Obama continues to go against his nature and stand by his bill.

  • T2 on October 11, 2011 3:07 PM:

    as several have said, the headline will be "Obama loses bipartisen vote on Jobs"
    Once again worthless worms like Nelson and LIEberman have shown their true colors...Red.
    Can't the lady from NH at least vote.....that's what she's paid to do.

  • Kathryn on October 11, 2011 3:14 PM:

    Just called Manchin's office, got nothing, mailbox is full and too busy to answer phones. I contributed to his campaign and I want my money back. He's running in 2012 and is a gutless wonder as far as I'm concerned. Instead of talking turkey to his constituents, he enables them. West Virginia is a poor state, they hate Obama mainly because he's black, they vote against their own interests, economic and social. My Mother was from the westernmost corner of Maryland with spitting distance from West Virginia, grandfather an immigrant coal miner, I don't claim to understand culture, raised in the city, but these folks are not intellectually stupid. Isn't way past time to treat them like intellectual equals and talk to them straight about what's in their best interest? Joe needs to find his inner Elizabeth Warren and stop trying to get re-elected and preach the truth to those people. His phone number on the hill is 202-224-3954' for what it's worth.

  • SYSPROG on October 11, 2011 3:15 PM:

    Here's a tip weasely Dems. DO SOMETHING, DO ANYTHING and then you have something to run on. Do nothing and you don't have your base and you sure as hell don't have the Republicans you are trying to 'court' in your home states. Baby you got NOTHING.

  • square1 on October 11, 2011 3:21 PM:

    The president has done absolutely everything that could be asked of him

    Clearly this the most important issue. God forbid that President Obama bear any blame for anything.

    But before we break out the smelling salts over Obama being blamed, let's reflect on a few facts:

    1. Until a few weeks ago, President Obama wasn't proposing any jobs legislation. In the past year, the President has supported a debt-ceiling compromise that involved massive spending cuts, praised a budget deal involving "historic" spending cuts, called for a five-year spending freeze, and unilaterally imposed a wage freeze on federal workers, all while maintaining that the economy was in recovery.

    2. Even after the White House announced the jobs speech, they kept the details under wraps for a few weeks and didn't even have a bill by the time the speech arrived. All this has contributed to a lack of urgency.

    3. There is no evidence that President Obama (or Harry Reid) has lifted a finger to get his own caucus in line. Sure, we can speculate that Lieberman, Nelson, etc. would ignore any pressure if applied but you don't know unless you try. And we all know what happens to outside groups that threaten ConservaDems. They get called "fucking retarded" and threatened with denial of access.

    So, a more fair assessment is to say that in the past few weeks, other than allowing members of his own caucus to embarrass him by opposing the jobs bill, the President has struck the right tone.

  • Yashmak on October 11, 2011 3:25 PM:

    "Most Americans support its provisions; it enjoys strong support from economists; it includes ideas from both parties; and the CBO found it will even lower the deficit over the next decade."

    Interesting, as members of the Senate Budget Committee have determined its actual impact will be as follows:

    $1.4 trillion ……………………………. Actual deficit reduction through 10 years under the president’s plan, less than half the amount promised

    Zero ……………………………………… Percent of deficit reduction that comes from spending cuts

    $1.6 trillion ……………………………. Net tax increase over 10 years

    $146 billion ……………………………. Spending increase over 10 years above current law levels

    $9.7 trillion ……………………………. Additional gross debt that would accumulate over 10 years

    $1.3 trillion ……………………………. Projected deficit in 2012, a $300 billion increase over OMB’s last projection

  • John Allred on October 11, 2011 3:27 PM:

    No Brainer?? Lets see, you think is a good idea to put in Permanent Taxes that will start in 2013. Then you want to spend $455 billion today for temporary jobs. Sounds like about the time the temp jobs run out the taxes kick in. And then what???
    MMMM Permanent taxes for temporary jobs.... Genius!!!

  • Yashmak on October 11, 2011 3:29 PM:

    ". . .the goal has been to get a vote in the Senate first, where at least there’s an ostensible Democratic majority. Republicans, who’ve already effectively broken the institution, will filibuster the jobs bill."

    Laughable, as it was the Republicans in the Senate who tried to do just that, bring the bill to a vote. Reid blocked it, knowing that there is simply too much resistance in his own party for this bill to pass even the Senate. That's why the Senate Dems are vigorously re-writing the thing now. Obviously, the issue isn't as simplistic or clear-cut as this author would like his readers to believe.

  • bardgal on October 11, 2011 3:31 PM:

    President Obama's poll numbers are still higher than everyone in Congress. They are low for Obama, but they're also higher than any Democratic President since Harry Truman at this time of his presidency. Yes, even higher than President Clinton.

    Congressional Dems might want to take that into consideration. Their poll numbers would probably go UP if they manage to finally grow a spine, and stand with the POTUS.

  • Easy $ on October 11, 2011 3:35 PM:

    "All told, the plan would likely add about 1.9 million jobs to an economy that desperately needs them."

    Yeah, likely.

  • bardgal on October 11, 2011 3:41 PM:

    How did everyone in the US get so stupid?

    The DEMS never had control of the Senate. NOT EVER.
    http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/myth-of-progressive-majority/

    Ben Nelson was responsible for killing the Public Option before talks on HCR ever started.

    Anyone who thinks it's President Obama or his leadership that is the problem, needs to pull their head out of their ass, and look at what he's actually accomplished:
    http://obamaachievements.org/list
    - in the face of record obstruction, and trying to herd the Dems which is akin to herding CATS.

    What he has accomplished is HERCULEAN considering what he's been up against.

    Obama isn't the problem. WE ARE. WE need to send rational ADULTS with a SPINE to Congress that will actually WORK with him, stand with him, and HAVE HIS BACK.

  • Playrighter on October 11, 2011 3:43 PM:

    While I realize this is clearly a left-leaning site, I would respectfully ask what is cowardly about voting with your heart and your mind? And if a number of Democrats are agreeing with the GOP in a bill backed with dubious intent and dubious outcomes, isn't that the true showing of bipartisanship? Or does a victory for the Democrats trump all, regardless of the lasting results?

  • gone_west on October 11, 2011 3:52 PM:

    Trying to sell a job bill in a state where unemployment is much less than the national average is tough anytime. Throw in a couple of other factors like a relatively high concentration of millionaires or land based wealth, and it gets tougher. The unemployment rate in Nebraska sits at 4.2%,and in New Hampshire at 5.1%. New Hampshire sits at 4th in percentage of households with net worth greater than a million dollars in 2010 according to cnbc.

  • desraye on October 11, 2011 3:54 PM:

    Wow. It seems this blog has become infected with some teabaggers.They must be getting scare.

  • DenverRight on October 11, 2011 3:54 PM:

    It is still possible to pass those parts of the AJA that both sides already agree on. Only in the fanatasy world of certain partisans is it a case of "PASS THIS BILL" or My way or the highway."

    but these members [Manchin, Nelson, Lieberman] certainly look like cowards... Nelson and Lieberman are not illiterate; they surely know the basic details of the bill. But Nelson is afraid of losing next year, and Lieberman is, well, Lieberman, so both will reject a popular jobs bill — and a popular tax increase — during a jobs crisis.

    Of course, if members of one's own party defect, you could call that COWARDICE. Others will call it bipartisan opposition - perhaps the only bipartisanship Harry Reid is likely to encourage in his Senate. (and I can remember when Lieberman was the Dem Party's choice for Vice President! What has happened to that once honorable group?).

    Most Americans support its provisions.

    Of course, MOST Americans haven't read the entire Act (dare I say the same for most Senators?), so how can they judge its merits AS UNALTERABLE LAW. Polls are a test of the prevailing sentiment, not the suitability of particular laws - if polls mattered, why did the "Patient Protection and Affordability Act" pass?

    The only other point would be that, perhaps it contains a "popular tax increase" because the President has realized that if he robs only Peter to pay Paul, he will likely gain the support of Paul. By any other name, it is still class warfare. But then, we already know that the President has chosen sides, and now declares himself a "class warrior."

  • a4alice on October 11, 2011 4:07 PM:

    I'm going to post this but can't stay to argue about it. However here's some food for thought whether or not you agree with AJA perhaps you will think about how this may grease the wheels of your state while gaining important infrastructure which is important for what? Business.

    Here in Minnesota we are looking forward with great anticipation to the passage of the AJA.


    1. The AJA will help small businesses hire and grow: cutting the payroll tax in half for 120,000 of Minnesota's small employers for the first $5 million in wages;

    2. At least $608 million for Minnesota highways, transit, rail and aviation, supporting at least 7,900 local jobs;

    3. $274.5 million for Minnesota public school construction and renovation, supporting as many as 3,600 jobs;

    4. Finally the AJA prevents layoffs of our teachers, police officers and firefighters
    helping the state and city governments avoid and reverse as many as 3,600 layoffs with $504 million.


    I got this info in response from our rockin' Congresswoman Betty McCollum she helped point out these things which are important to Minnesotans. I'm gonna guess the people of your state could be helped greatly with passing the Jobs Act.

    I gotta go back to making phone calls to senators urging them to pass.the.bill.

  • TCinLA on October 11, 2011 4:09 PM:

    Can we get smarter wingnuts to post here, please? all we get are the ones from that other species of hairless biped you find here on the planet, who lack frontal lobes and opposable thumbs, whose existence here proves that computers are now so user-friendly that morons can use them.

    I mean, you halfwits are an embarrassment to wingnuttery. What, you're all Bocephus fans?

  • bardgal on October 11, 2011 4:22 PM:

    To all of sheep saying the Stimulus didn't work. The facts disagree with you.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-31/opinion/bernstein.obama.recovery_1_job-growth-unemployment-rate-gdp-growth?_s=PM:OPINION

    Yes, the Earth is still round, and way more than 600 years old. Nothing will ever change those FACTS.

  • bardgal on October 11, 2011 4:24 PM:

    sorry - that was supposed to be 6000 - still older. Much.

  • Peggy Hopper on October 11, 2011 4:27 PM:

    A bit late in the day, but this is my email to Sen. Shaheen. Her contact info is:
    http://www.jeanneshaheen.org/contact
    "Dear Senator Shaheen, as a Boston Democrat, I planned to volunteer with your campaign and contribute to your campaign.
    If you do not think that voting for The American Jobs Act is worthwhile, I will certainly not contribute."

  • elle on October 11, 2011 4:52 PM:

    Lol @Davis saying we should try the Republicans job proposal instead.

    Sure, we'd be happy to, if you could tell us what it is. And no, dissolving the EPA and Dept of Education don't count as that would kidd thousands of jobs...rather the opposite of what we're looking for, hmm?

  • DisgustedWithItAll on October 11, 2011 5:40 PM:

    Why is it that I literally can't stand the party I vote for? Will this immeasurable stupidity ever stop?

  • The_Duke on October 11, 2011 6:00 PM:

    "House Republicans are still extremists, Senate Republicans are both radical and obstructionist"

    Exactly correct. They are doing what they were elected to do - put the brakes on destructive leftist policies.

    The "jobs bill" in question is nothing more than another payoff to public sector parasites - oops, I mean unions. And, of course, any of those wonderful "shovel ready" jobs will go to - wait for it - union contractors.

    Finally, I do notice a lot of anger and rage here. Punching Ben Nelson in the face, dragging "them" out in the street, revolution is coming, etc., etc. Very well. When the Revolution starts, remember who has all the guns (hint - we're clinging to them).

  • kevo on October 11, 2011 6:21 PM:

    Hey The-Duke - Keep clinging to your guns. They make for great security for the ignorant, the bigoted, and the self-proclaimed righteous.

    as for the "destructive leftist policies" - bet you can't even articulate what any of "those" were or are! Name one "destructive" policy. One, and you had better have your supportive data in line. An emotional rant along the lines of keep the government hands off my Medicare will not do! -Kevo

  • rose on October 11, 2011 9:26 PM:

    Good for your response Kevo! to the Duke!

  • INTJ on October 12, 2011 12:08 PM:

    I'd certainly agree that people without brains support AJA.

    One "destructive leftist policy," kevo, is to increase taxes during a stalling economic recovery, something even Warren Buffett (of the "Buffett Rule") does not support. Another is the de facto takeover of the health insurance sector of the economy by a government that can't even balance its own books, while limiting individual freedoms in the process. A third would be the utterly useless Keynesian spending which has increased our deficit above even the level it reached under Bush and TARP, while we borrow 40% of that from a hostile foreign power.

    Currently the richest 10% pay 70% of all income taxes. The only way to have everyone pay "their fair share" is to institute a flat tax, where everyone pays proportionally to their income. But progressives hate that idea, too, so you're just out of luck.

  • INTJ on October 12, 2011 12:11 PM:

    The world must be bitterly confusing for those who think that progressives are not only always right, but that they represent the majority opinion.

  • BeeteonsCot on December 01, 2011 3:17 AM:

    Hi guys,
    Help me to find popular dating sites: mens, womens, teens.
    With best regards

  •  
  •  
  •