Obama spending plan killed in Senate

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/11/us-usa-jobs-idUSTRE79A4D220111011

(Reuters) - The Senate defeated President Barack Obama's job-creation package on Tuesday in a sign that Washington is likely too paralyzed to take major steps to spur hiring before the 2012 elections.

The $447 billion package of tax cuts and new spending failed by a vote of 50 to 48, short of the 60 votes it needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. Voting was expected to continue for several hours but would not affect the outcome.

Obama, campaigning in Florida, said the vote was not the end of the fight for the measure. In a statement after the vote, Obama accused Republicans of obstruction and said he would work with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make sure that individual proposals in the bill would get a vote as soon as possible.

"Ultimately, the American people won't take 'no' for an answer. It's time for Congress to meet their responsibility, put their party politics aside and take action on jobs right now."

Obama had barnstormed around the country to pressure his Republican opponents to back his top legislative priority, but he did not pick up a single Republican vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Two Democrats, facing re-election in conservative states, also voted against the measure.

Obama said earlier on Tuesday he would try to pass components of the bill individually.

Though Obama's top legislative priority is now dead in Congress, it is certain to have a long afterlife on the campaign trail.

Obama's 2012 re-election chances depend on his ability to spur the sluggish economic recovery and revive the nearly stagnant job market.

The U.S. unemployment rate has been above 9 percent since May and almost 45 percent of the 14 million jobless Americans have been out of work for six months or more.

Even Wall Street is feeling the pinch, with a report from the New York State Comptroller showing that banker bonuses are likely to drop for the second year in a row.

Among the elements of the bill which might be salvaged are a payroll tax cut which Obama wants to extend to avoid imposing an effective tax increase at a time when wages have not been rising much. Obama's bill would also extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, another area that could yield bipartisan support.

Other elements, such as increased highway spending and aid for cash-strapped states, aren't likely to pick up Republican support.

POLITICAL FOOTBALL

Democrats say that Republicans are more interested in defeating Obama than helping the country recover from the deepest recession since the 1930s.

"Republicans think if the economy improves it might help President Obama. So they root for the economy to fail, and oppose every effort to improve it," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said before the vote.

Republicans, who have lined up behind a job-creation agenda centered around relaxing business regulations, say Obama's jobs bill is essentially a warmed-over version of his 2009 stimulus.

That effort helped to ease the impact of the worst recession since the 1930s, but Republicans point out that it did not keep unemployment below 8 percent as the White House had promised.

"Everyone who votes for this second stimulus will have to answer a simple but important question: why on Earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

Obama's so-called Jobs Council, under the chairmanship of GE Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt, earlier delivered a report in which they proposed steps to foster U.S. innovation and make the country more attractive to foreign investment.

(Additional reporting by Alister Bull, Matt Spetalnick, Tom Ferraro, Caren Bohan and Lucia Mutikani in Washington and Laura MacInnis in Pittsburgh; editing by Bill Schomberg and Sandra Maler)

**juraigamer**

I'm sorry, I can't read it all that well, all I'm seeing is political war.

**Frazzled**

This is actually a good deal. Obama is now threatening to break the act into smaller bills. Thats excellent. There were several parts of it that weren't bad.

**Asherian Command**

Yeah but knowing the Republicans they don't like anything about Obama so they are trying to paint a bad image of him on the media.

**WarOne**

Honestly, I don't see much of this getting past Congress so long as Obama's name is attached to any of it.

Now if Republicans or Democrats not named Obama were to try and pass the bits and pieces that could be popular/effective, then we could talk about progressing in a meaningful way what with trying to boost the economy and jobs in general.

**Melissia**

Yeah, I dont' see republicans doing anything constructive until/unless they get a person in the presidency.

They think they benefit more from being obstructionists right now than actually helping the country. Kinda like the dems during Bush' reign really.

**WarOne**

Melissia wrote:Yeah, I dont' see republicans doing anything constructive until/unless they get a person in the presidency

Even then that is not a surefire way to do anything constructive.

Remember- we have Democrats who are more than likely to do a Republican onces the Republicans attain power again.

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:This is actually a good deal. Obama is now threatening to break the act into smaller bills. Thats excellent. There were several parts of it that weren't bad.

Heck, why even bother waiting for Congress to act? It worked for Libya, so why not the jobs act?

The American Jobs Act that I’m putting forward obviously contains many ideas like infrastructure investment that should be pretty straightforward. And our hope is that we are able to get those passed in the next couple of months. But we’re not going to wait for Congress. So my instruction to Jeff and Gene and Valerie and all the advisors who are sitting around the table is scour this report, identify all those areas in which we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done.

**Karon**

Melissia wrote:Yeah, I dont' see republicans doing anything constructive until/unless they get a person in the presidency.

They think they benefit more from being obstructionists right now than actually helping the country. Kinda like the dems during Bush' reign really.

This...doesn't really matter what's in the bill, as long as Obama is involved in it, Republicans name it as the devils work and claim that it has homosexual trickery engraved in the paper.

**Lord Scythican**

Melissia wrote:Yeah, I dont' see republicans doing anything constructive until/unless they get a person in the presidency.

They think they benefit more from being obstructionists right now than actually helping the country. Kinda like the dems during Bush' reign really.

My thoughts exactly. I can't believe we are paying them to not do their job. Didn't they say last year that they were going to totally commit themselves to fighting Obama every chance they got? Could you imagine telling your boss that you was going to undermine him every chance you got? Try that at Wal-Mart and you would be fired within the hour.

**Orlanth**

Obama is doing whaat Blair did and Brown tried to do.

Spend spend spend, it doesnt matter how much the nation owes, thats for you suckers to pay. I have a re-election looming.

Blair sold our gold reserves, at a buyers price simply to buy a tax cut and spending rise for the 2001 election. Effectively sold the family silver for a frolic. Brown squandered what was left of our economy in a lunatic plot to tax cut while spending and put us into monsterous debt.

The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.

Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.

**mattyrm**

Orlanth wrote:Obama is doing whaat Blair did and Brown tried to do.

Spend spend spend, it doesnt matter how much the nation owes, thats for you suckers to pay. I have a re-election looming.

Blair sold our gold reserves, at a buyers price simply to buy a tax cut and spending rise for the 2001 election. Effectively sold the family silver for a frolic. Brown squandered what was left of our economy in a lunatic plot to tax cut while spending and put us into monsterous debt.

The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.

Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.

I concur!

**Melissia**

Orlanth wrote:The US could do well to see through Obama's mad spending plans. Short term = spend, longer term = save.

Now is the time for keen cuts not ambitious projects.

Cuts during a recession just lengthen the recession. Austerity measures are best done during good economic times-- sure, we should plan for them, but steep cuts don't help an economy recover.

It's like if the fed decided to use measures to cut down on inflation if we were actuall suffering deflation.

*looks to Europe* Not that that is at all a realistic scenario. Nope.

**Orlanth**

Very loosely

Spend frugally in the good times = Germany

Squander during thr good times = UK (under Blair)

Squander when tghe economy is worse than it looks = UK (under Brown)

Get away with it long enough to make the fake good times roll = Greece.

The difference between UK under Brown and the Greek economy is that Brown was not in power long enough to really feth us up. That was because his squander while sticking head in sand policy was largely working, he was deeply unpopular for other reasons.

Tony Blair is an international role model for hoodwinking a nation on the backs of spin and a false economy. His first term will be looked at for many years to come as a model for successful self centered political gain. While Blair was immediately detrimental, his ability to mask the balance between economic input and output was not crippling over the course of a single term in office, and pretty much guaranteed reelection.

Obama is the US's Tony Blair, he wants to follow the model and attain the same goal. Obama is was and always will be a chancer, his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.

Unfortunately for Obama the global recession means the US cannot afford a 'Blair term' right now. This wont stop Obama from trying to cash in though, and that will be very costly for the American tax payer, not just for the current generation, but also for the next.

**Melissia**

Yeah, I still don't see the comparison, no matter how hard you strain to make it. There's no actual substance explaining the comparison in the post above, which is telling.

**Cannerus_The_Unbearable**

Why is reelection the driving force here instead of what they think is best for the nation?

**Frazzled**

Ask Obama that question about his bill, sending something designed to fail so he could then complain about it.

Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, polling continues the American people's continuing desire to fire all of them.

**Ahtman**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Why is reelection the driving force here instead of what they think is best for the nation?

If you are not elected the rest doesn't matter as much; not saying it is right or wrong, but the reality of it. You have to be in the Senate to vote in the Senate.

**Monster Rain**

There's also the possibility that some of those people in the Senate might actually not think that some aspects of the spending bill are in the nation's best interest.

Crazy, I know.

**Frazzled**

Thats just crazy talk! BLAME THE VICTIM!

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:...his only real political asset is his ability to grab an opportunity quickly and run with it.

That's pretty much the only political asset that exists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Ask Obama that question about his bill, sending something designed to fail so he could then complain about it.

Sound strategy.

Frazzled wrote:
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, polling continues the American people's continuing desire to fire all of them.

It always indicates that, Congress never polls well because you're essentially asking people who didn't vote for X how they feel about X.

**Monster Rain**

Frazzled wrote:Thats just crazy talk! BLAME THE VICTIM!

If people worked more they'd have more money.

How about a "Bootstrap Bill (Arrrrr!)" where we take tax money and attach bootstraps to the downtrodden so they can pull themselves up?

**dogma**

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Why is reelection the driving force here instead of what they think is best for the nation?

Because we're selfish beings, even if we expect our politicians to be different.

**Monster Rain**

dogma wrote:It always indicates that, Congress never polls well because you're essentially asking people who didn't vote for X how they feel about X.

Exactly. Views of congress overall are low, but generally a congressman in their home district polls pretty well.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
It always indicates that, Congress never polls well because you're essentially asking people who didn't vote for X how they feel about X.

Very true.

**Battle Brother Ambrosius**

It is a shame the Republicans are so arrogant that they automatically disagree with anything Obama says :( They should at least co-operate and try to make decisions that benefit both sides, and not trying to hold onto their ideals so tightly.

**Frazzled**

Battle Brother Ambrosius wrote:It is a shame the Republicans are so arrogant that they automatically disagree with anything Obama says :( They should at least co-operate and try to make decisions that benefit both sides, and not trying to hold onto their ideals so tightly.

They don't, but don't worry about that facts thing.

**mattyrm**

See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

**Frazzled**

mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT but on what channel was the debate posted? I could not find it last night.

**Avatar 720**

Frazzled wrote:
mattyrm wrote: See, this is why an absolute monarch or a dictator is way better than the pretence of fething diplomacy we have in the US/UK. The older and wiser I get, the more and more I loathe our systems of government.

Basically all the politicians take the fething piss. I would rather just have one guy in charge at the top who decides everything, it has to be far more effective, and I'm good at following orders. If he passes a law I don't like, i think id just quietly follow it, better that than the current pretence of harmony, and we basically lie, back-stab, scheme, and argue about anything and everything and nothing ever gets done.

In the UK they have a £500,000, 6 month court case when a guy wants to get his tree chopped down. I'd rather just have some slightly crazed bloke in charge make all the decisions once a week. You know how they used to petition the king?

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Royalist, I am deadly serious! I would much rather have The Queen have absolute aauthority and scrap all of parliament, but I think id even rather have Kim Jong in charge than continue with all these stinking fething bureaucrat's!

Caesar was ace as well.

What if that one guy is Caligula, Stalin, Pol Pot, or even worse - Al Gore?

There's always Civil War. Give Matty something to do in his spare time